Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (NORTH-WEST FRONTIER).

Mr. Leach: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what report he has to make on the North-West Frontier troubles; and what is the prospect of a peaceful settlement of these long-drawn-out wars in which so many lives have been lost?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lord Stanley): I have little to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) on 29th November. Peace terms have now been accepted by jirgas of the Bhitanni tribe and our troops have evacuated Bhitanni tribal territory. The withdrawal of troops from Waziristan continues and several units have now returned to their normal stations.

Mr. Leach: Has an offer been received from Mr. Gandhi to mediate in this matter?

Lord Stanley: I have no information to that effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conversations have taken place with the Netherlands Government concerning defence co-operation in the Far East?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I have no statement to make on this subject.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have any proposals for such conversations been made?

Mr. Eden: As I have said, I have no statement to make.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any action in respect of the bombing of British ships at Wuhu by Japanese aircraft?

Mr. Moreing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with regard to the bombing of British ships by Japanese aeroplanes at Wuhu on 5th December?

Mr. Eden: There is nothing which I can at present add to the information with regard to this matter in the answer given by my Noble Friend on 9th December to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut. - Commander Fletcher).

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that a state of belligerency has not been recognised in this China situation, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the desirability of asking for compensation in respect of this damage?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it the case that the Japanese authorities have forbidden all movements of shipping on the Yangtse?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will await the statement which I am to make later.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the German Ambassador in China offering his services as a peace mediator between the Chinese and Japanese Governments?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I understand from the German and Japanese Governments that the German Ambassador at Nanking has not been charged with the mission of making any such offer on their behalf.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any British military attaché is actually present with the Japanese forces in the field in China?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Sir A. Knox: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable that we should have a military attaché present at these operations?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government intend to propose that a meeting of the Far-Eastern Advisory Committee should be held, in view of the failure of the Brussels Conference to recommend any action in defence of China?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government do not at present intend to take the initiative in making such a proposal, more especially since they have received no indication that any Government desires such an initiative to be taken by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact tha His Majesty's Government do not intend to take the initiative, are we to understand that they prefer to wait until some other country does so?

Mr. Eden: If the hon Gentleman reads my answer, he will see the whole of our reasons for not taking it.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Nine-Power Conference at Brussels discussed the financial conditions of Japan?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations were made to His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo in connection with the proposed visit of Japanese propagandists to this country; was permission sought; and, if so, what was the object of this mission?

Mr. Eden: Such individuals as have come to this country have, so far as I know, come in a private capacity. There was, therefore, no question of any representations to His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo nor of any permission being sought or given.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with respect to the action of Japanese forces in firing upon British warships yesterday?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I regret to say that several attacks were made yesterday by Japanese forces on foreign shipping including His Majesty's ships on the Yangtze River. A concentration of British

merchant shipping with His Majesty's Ships "Cricket" and "Scarab" in company at a spot between Nanking and Wuhu were attacked with bombs three times, but fortunately without a hit being registered. His Majesty's ships opened fire in return with no reported result.
At Wuhu further incidents took place. His Majesty's Ship "Ladybird," which proceeding to join a British tug which had been attacked by machine-gun fire, was fired on by a field-gun battery. Four direct hits were sustained by His Majesty's Ship "Ladybird," and I deeply regret to have to report that one naval rating was killed. There were in addition several casualties, including the Flag Captain. The same battery had been firing at merchant ships, and at least one British merchant ship was hit. His Majesty's Ship "Bee," which arrived shortly after, was also fired upon but was not hit. The Senior Naval Officer landed and made a strong protest to the senior Japanese military officer, who stated that the firing on the warships was a mistake but that he had orders to fire at every ship on the river.
The Japanese civil, military and naval authorities in Shanghai were immediately informed, and have undertaken to warn the Japanese forces in the field. Meanwhile His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo has made the strongest protest to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has promised to make an immediate inquiry.
The seriousness of these incidents needs no emphasis, but, in view of the grave issues involved, I hope that the House will not ask me for any fuller statement to-day.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any information that similar attacks have been made on ships of the United States; and, if so, whether he has been in consultation at all with the United States Government on the subject of these repeated attacks?

Mr. Eden: In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I regret to say that a United States gunboat, which was also attacked, has actually been sunk, with, it would appear, loss of life. The answer to the second part is that we are in communication with the United States Government.

Mr. T. Williams: May we ask the right hon. Gentleman how the Japanese explanation can be reconciled, when they say that it was an accident and, secondly, that the instructions were to fire on every ship in the river?

Mr. Eden: That is just one of the questions that I would rather not answer.

Mr. Gallacher: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Foreign Secretary said that he could answer no further questions.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not want to ask for further information. I want to ask the Foreign Secretary, on this question, whether it is not desirable that the Government should get into touch with the nations that are still at the League of Nations?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE RAILWAYS.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Argentine Government have yet granted repeated requests that representatives should be elected to form the commission under the Argentine Transport Co-ordination Act passed a year ago; and, if not, will he, on behalf of British subjects who are suffering loss by the inability of the railways to obtain the promised redress, make representations to the Argentine Government?

Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 29th November, from which he will see that the British railway companies concerned are in communication with the Minister of Public Works, and that no request for assistance has been received from them by His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information of an incident aboard the steamship "Highland Princess," on a recent visit to Las Palmas, when members of General Franco's police attempted to take off the boat a British seaman who had refused to return the Fascist salute; and whether the newly appointed British agent in General Franco's territory will make representations to avoid any recurrence of such actions?

Mr. Eden: I have made inquiries of the company concerned and understand that no report of any such incident as that referred to in the hon. Member's question has been received. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that I have a letter from the man affected, who says that he was threatened with arrest on this boat; that he could get no satisfaction from the master of the ship and could not get in touch with any agents of the British Government?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I cannot be aware of any letter which the hon. Member has received, unless he tells me about it. I have made inquiries from the company, and though the ship has been back for a month, they have no information to that effect.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it not the case that more important persons have been reported as giving another salute; and was that by compulsion?

Mr. Gallacher: If I give the Minister the information, will he make further inquiries?

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information in connection with the decision of the Non-Intervention Committee upon General Franco's reply to the proposals for the withdrawal of volunteers; whether General Franco has demanded official recognition; and whether he can state the text of the reply to General Franco's proposals?

Mr. Eden: The replies of the two parties have been published by the Non-Intervention Committee and the hon. Member will see that the reply of General Franco refers to the question of recognition in its relationship to the granting of belligerent rights. The committee agreed that the replies of both parties were of such a character as to enable it to proceed with its work, and I understand that these replies are now being dealt with.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Van Dulm-Hemming report on the control of Spanish frontiers will be published before any action is taken by the Non-intervention Committee to carry out its proposals?

Mr. Eden: I understand that the Van Dulm-Hemming report was a confidential document prepared for the consideration of the Non-Intervention Committee and the two parties in Spain, and that it will therefore not be published. Any decisions which the Committee may take as a result of this report will, however, doubtless be made public.

Mr. R. Acland: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the report modifies the conditions as to land and sea control, or whether it extends to the further modification of the conditions for the withdrawal of volunteers?

Mr. Eden: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — AZORES (ITALIAN PRESS STATEMENTS).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the statement published in the entire government-controlled Italian Press that His Majesty's Government intend to annex the Azores Islands, now Portuguese territory; and whether, in view of the continuous anti-British propaganda carried on from Italian officially-controlled sources, he will invite the Italian Government to state whether or not they intend to conform to the terms of the joint declaration of January, 1937?

Mr. Eden: I am aware of the publication in the Italian Press of the statement to which the hon. Member refers. I am confident that it will be everywhere appreciated that no significance need be attached to fantastic statements of this kind, which are, of course, entirely devoid of foundation.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that one of the terms of the joint declaration of January was to the effect that the Italian Government would discourage any activities likely to impair good relations with this country, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this kind of continuous propaganda fulfils the terms of the undertaking?

Mr. Eden: I am dealing now with a specific case and, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman, in my view fabrications of this kind do most harm to the people who use them.

Mr. Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that this statement receives the widest possible circulation in Portugal where these allegations are calculated to do a great deal of harm?

Mr. Eden: I am sure the Portuguese Government give no more credit to them than we do ourselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when the British Government last made representations to the Russian Government with regard to the default on the service of Russian Government bonds and guaranteed securities held by British subjects; and whether further action is contemplated?

Mr. Eden: The last suitable opportunity for official representations was during the negotiation of the temporary Commercial Agreement of February, 1934. It is, unfortunately, not possible to say at present when further negotiations for this purpose can be usefully undertaken.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up a clearing office for the benefit of British creditors in view of the fact that the balance of trade between Russia and the United Kingdom is heavily in favour of Russia?

Mr. Eden: That is rather another question. I am aware of the unsatisfactory nature of this situation but it is a matter of finding an occasion to rectify it.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that these are Tsarist Government bonds?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

UNITED STATES (EXHIBITION).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to what extent and in what manner His Majesty's Government propose to support the forthcoming exhibition to be held in the United States of America?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Substantial progress is being made in the consideration of various proposals and an officer of my Department is at present in New York negotiating with the Exhibition authorities.

Mr. Day: Will the Minister see that the prestige of Great Britain is upheld?

SWITZERLAND.

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in negotiating a new trade agreement with Switzerland, he will give an assurance that no alteration will be made in the rates or system of application of import duties, particularly in respect of goods now being manufactured in this country for the first time on a large scale with machinery set up since 1931, and in no case without full consultation with the Import Duties Advisory Board and the trade associations concerned?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the interests of all branches of United Kingdom trade and industry which may be affected by these negotiations will be taken into consideration. The usual practice has been followed of consulting the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and, as was pointed out in the reply given to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) on 2nd December, it is open to any trade interests to make representations. I might add that many of these have already done so.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that no trade agreement is concluded without the consent of the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

Captain Wallace: No, Sir, certainly not.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that no trade agreement is concluded without consulting the Committee?

Captain Wallace: Yes, I think the hon. Member may take that to be the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that importers of goods from the Continent use packing straw over and over again; whether any research has been made as to whether this straw may be a source of foot-and-mouth disease; and whether he proposes to introduce stricter methods of control and supervision?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The reply to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Order, of 1926, makes provision to the effect that when hay and straw has been used for packing purposes, it must not be brought into contact with any animal in Great Britain, or removed from the premises except for use as packing, or for destruction, or for return in a crate or box to the sender for further use as packing. When such purposes have been served the material is required by the Order to be destroyed. The Order is enforced by local authorities, and, according to the reports of the Ministry's divisional inspectors, is generally well observed. The experiments of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee show that on hay and straw the dried virus of foot-and-mouth disease might remain active for some weeks, but in the absence of evidence against this material, there does not appear to be any case for further action.

Mrs. Tate: asked the Minister of Agriculture what official experiments or investigations have been carried out or are proposed in order to investigate the theory, that the fly of the genus borborus is a carrier of the virus of foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. Morrison: The habits of the flies of the genus borborus have been considered by the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee, whose opinion is that there is no evidence indicating that the members of this genus are responsible for the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.

Mrs. Tate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Professor Muschamp, Entomologist at Leicester Museum, is convinced that this fly is the source of the disease, and has any money been spent on investigating it?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of the opinions of the gentleman to whom the hon. Lady refers. Perhaps there may be some misunderstanding, as the genus named in the hon. Lady's question is not known to exist. The question as to flies of the genus borborus has been investigated by the Research Committee, and they have expressed the opinion which I have indicated in the answer.

Mrs. Tate: Is it not a fact that I am not responsible, but that it was the Clerks at the Table who spelled my fly wrongly?

MILK DESIGNATIONS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Health whether, under the Milk (Special Designations) Order, 1936, he is aware that the charge imposed by the county councils for establishments at which milk is produced and bottled is two guineas; and whether, in view of the fact that all that is entailed is simply registration, steps will be taken to reduce this charge?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): The fee referred to is the maximum which may be charged for licences for designated milks under the Order of 1936 and it may be reduced or dispensed with at the discretion of the county council. The granting of the licences in question, however, is not simply a matter of registration, but is subject to the council being satisfied that the prescribed conditions as to production and bottling are complied with, and my right hon. Friend sees no ground for modifying the scale of fees set out in the Order.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the Minister realise that the producer-retailer wants every possible assistance at the present time?

Sir William Davison: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any special milk was supplied to the British Broadcasting Corporation on 8th May?

Hon. Members: 7th May?

BUTTER.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Agriculture what changes have taken place in the price of butter in the course of the last month; how present prices compare with those prevailing in 1929; and whether supplies are now adequate to meet all requirements?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The average price per cwt. on the London Provision Exchange of New Zealand butter has fallen from 150s. in the first week of November to 110s. last week, and that of Danish butter from 159s. 6d. to 150s. 6d. Prices of these two classes of butter in November were 23 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively lower than in

November, 1929. As regards the last part of the question, prospective arrivals from Australia and New Zealand during the current month are likely to be well in excess of those for last year, and supplies in January should be heavier than they were in January of this year. Considerable stocks of butter are also, of course, held in this country.

Mr. Silverman: Can the Minister say what are the comparative prices for soft soap over the same period?

Mr. Kirk wood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that there are tens of thousands of people in this country who have not got an adequate income to enable them to purchase butter, and will he use his influence with the Cabinet to see that it is made possible for butter to reach all and sundry in this country?

Mr. Morrison: That is a rather larger question, but my answer has made it clear that the price of butter is now lower than it was in 1929.

Mr. T. Williams: When is the new formula as applied to butter and cheese likely to operate?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

INJURIOUS WEEDS.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many county councils employ full-time inspectors to deal exclusively with the problem of noxious weeds; and in how many cases have these inspectors other duties to perform?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am informed that in eight counties one or more officials are engaged full time, or practically full time, on this work during the appropriate season of the year. In other counties the work is carried out by officers of the council who have other duties to perform.

Mr. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the very small number of full-time inspectors for this special work is any guarantee that the farmers are doing their duty by the land and by their neighbours?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member will realise that the enforcement of weed destruction can be carried out in conjunction with other duties, and the necessity for employing a whole-time


officer varies considerably. In some counties the local authority find it sufficient to employ officers who are also engaged in other duties.

Mr. Williams: In view of the small number of counties employing inspectors for this important duty, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the work is done effectively and that farmers in any county are not victims of inefficient neighbours?

Sir Francis Acland: Is not the Minister aware that the only thing which will really remedy this and other problems effectively would be to have a special authority in each county area to see that the land was made really good use of, as was suggested in the "Times" newspaper a fortnight ago and by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), in detail, 12 years ago?

Mr. Morrison: In answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), the local authorities have really been very active in this matter. In the year 1936 nearly 10,000 cases were investigated by agricultural committees. With regard to the second supplementary question, there does exist in every county now an authority charged with a number of agricultural duties, including that of enforcing the destruction of injurious weeds.

Sir F. Acland: Not a special one, though.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many farmers have been prosecuted during the present year for failing to keep their land free from noxious weeds; how many farmers have been given notice to leave the farm for the same reason; and will he state the counties where such action has been taken?

Mr. Morrison: County agricultural committees have been authorised to undertake prosecutions in respect of injurious weeds during the present year in 23 cases. In some instances either the offender subsequently cut the weeds, so that prosecution became unnecessary, or else the case has not yet been heard. I have information, however, of 10 prosecutions in which the hearing has taken place, the counties concerned being Derby, Kent, Norfolk, Stafford, East Sussex, and Denbigh. I have no information as to cases of farmers receiving notice to quit from

their landlords on account of the prevalence of injurious weeds on their land.

Mr. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea how many fines have been inflicted in connection with this matter?

Mr. Morrison: Where there have been prosecutions, the penalties imposed have ranged from ordering the defendant to pay the costs of the prosecution to a fine of £10.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER ROTHER (FLOODING).

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the serious menace to health caused by the overflowing of the River Rother, in South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire, by which houses are being inundated whenever there is a heavy rainfall; and what steps are being taken to remedy this?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am aware that there has recently been flooding in the upper reaches of the River Rother, which has affected houses built, according to my information, on land liable to flooding. The responsible authority for flood prevention in that area is the River Ouse (Yorks.) Catchment Board, and the Board are at present carrying out a comprehensive scheme of remedial works for the River Don, its tributaries, and other rivers at an estimated cost of nearly £1,200,000, with the aid of a grant of 33⅓ per cent. from the funds at my disposal. The catchment board are obliged first to deal with the lower reaches of the Don, and the carrying out of works on the Upper Rother must, therefore, depend to a large extent upon the completion of the works on the Lower Don designed to secure an adequate outfall. I understand, however, that certain discussions have taken place between the catchment board and the Rotherham Rural District Council with regard to possible works at Catcliffe and that the Board are awaiting certain proposals from the council with regard to the disposal of sewage and surface water.

Mr. Lee: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the catchment board will get to North Derbyshire?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter for the catchment board. The present problem in this area is that of so improving the outfall that remedial works undertaken higher up will have their full effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING.

CORPORATION CHARTER.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Postmaster-General, having regard to the widespread desire throughout the country for closer contact between the public and the British Broadcasting Corporation, whether he will consider introducing legislation to revise the charter in this connection?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): No, Sir. Closer contact with listeners is sought by the British Broadcasting Corporation in various ways, and I see no reason to suppose that these would be made easier or more effective by any change in the terms of the Royal Charter, which was granted less than a year ago after full discussion in this House.

Mr. De la Bère: Are the Government aware of the increasing ramifications and responsibilities of the British Broadcasting Corporation every day, and are they further aware that there is a real totalitarian dictatorship at Langham Place?

Major Tryon: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. I would suggest to him that the methods by which the British Broadcasting Corporation keep in touch with the different districts include regional conferences, correspondence and other methods.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that the Governors are virtually figureheads?

Major Tryon: No, Sir.

ALDERNEY.

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General whether his inquiries are now complete with reference to the daily broadcasts that are taking place from the Alderney radio station, Channel Isles; will he give particulars of the full permission granted to this radio station; and whether the same includes a permit to broadcast music and gramophone records?

Major Tryon: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 29th November in which I stated that no permission has been granted by me for a broadcasting station to operate in the island of Alderney. My inquiries in me matter are not yet complete.

Mr. Day: As the Wireless and Telegraphs Act, 1904, prohibits anybody

erecting or working a wireless station, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how this station could be installed without his licence?

Major Tryon: I am advised that the Wireless and Telegraphs Act is applicable to Alderney. No station can be installed or worked except under licence from the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Day: What is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman doing in the matter seeing that this wireless station is being worked without his permission?

Major Tryon: We are inquiring into what they are doing.

TELEVISION (PUBLIC EXHIBITION).

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the broadcasting by television of a programme from the Alexandra Palace to the Palais de Luxe Cinema, Bromley, on Tuesday, 7th December; whether, in view of the monopoly in television held by the Government and the British Broadcasting Corporation, he can say whether any application for permission was made and granted for the purpose of conducting this television broadcast; and, if not, what action he proposes taking in the matter?

Major Tryon: My attention has been drawn to Press reports of the matter mentioned in the first part of the question. Television programmes are broadcast from the Alexandra Palace twice daily by the British Broadcasting Corporation; and it appears that a demonstration was given of the reception of one of these programmes. As this would involve no broadcasting other than by the Corporation, the second and third parts of the question do not arise.

Mr. Day: Has any application been made for private television for commercial advertising?

Major Tryon: The hon. Member must put that question down.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Postmaster-General whether certain cinemas have been granted permission to give public exhibitions of the British Broadcasting Corporation television programmes from Alexandra Palace?

Major Tryon: So far as the reception of the programmes is concerned, possession of an ordinary wireless receiving licence suffices, but such possession is no warrant for any act which would be an infringement of copyright.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the Government do something to clarify the uncertainty that exists in this matter?

Major Tryon: I have answered my hon. Friend's question. If he has a different point on which he is uncertain, will he kindly put down a question?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Postmaster-General whether the reorganisation of the Birmingham telephone service is intended to extend to the telephone services of Sutton Coldfield, Solihull, Olton, Shirley, and Castle Bromwich; and whether acceleration of the supply of telephones to applicants residing in these districts is one of the purposes of the reorganisation?

Major Tryon: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, as I have already informed my hon. Friend, measures were put in hand some time ago with a view to providing additional plant in the places in question, and these measures are being continued.

Mr. Cartland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is serious delay in supplying telephones in the City of Birmingham area itself, and will he look into that?

Major Tryon: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the difficulties in Birmingham. They are owing to the exceptional development there, which we are doing our best to meet.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in Portobello there is frequently a delay of several months between the application for a telephone and its instalment; and whether he will take steps to accelerate the procedure?

Major Tryon: Serious difficulty is being experienced in providing telephone service in Portobello as a result of an abnormal increase in the number of would-be subscribers, which has given rise to a certain shortage of plant. Additional equipment

has been on order for some time and is now being installed. It is expected to be ready early in the New Year. The position is also affected by a shortage of equipment at the main Central Exchange at Edinburgh. Work is proceeding at this exchange also and it is anticipated that the difficulty will be entirely removed by April next.

AIR MAILS (LOSS).

Mr. Montague: asked the Postmaster-General whether, arising out of the wreck of the flying boat Cygnus, carying a heavy Christmas mail, he can give any information as to the losses consequent upon the dislocation of business by these accidents; whether representations have been made to Imperial Airways, Limited, as to the necessity for providing rubber or other waterproof mail bags in order to preserve the contents; if so, what reply was given by Imperial Airways, Limited; and whether he contemplates any measures to safeguard air mails?

Major Tryon: I am advised that the great bulk of the mails has been salvaged and that the damage done to individual letters is on a comparatively small scale. I much regret the consequential delay in delivery. The number of cases in which letters have been lost owing to accidents during the eight years of operation of the Empire air services is not such as to suggest that it is necessary to resort to the costly expedient of providing special containers to meet the risks to which any form of transport is unfortunately liable.

Mr. Montague: Does not the Postmaster-General consider waterproof bags a very elementary proposal?

Major Tryon: It is a very expensive, and not a particularly good one. One of the common risks from which these mails suffer is the risk of fire, in which rubber is not a good protection.

Miss Wilkinson: If the Postmaster-General cannot preserve the mails against fire, cannot be protect them from the risk of water just to be going on with?

Major Tryon: The facts are these. During 1935, 1936 and 1937 Imperial Airways performed 1,270 air-mail carrying flights on Empire routes, and in only seven instances were any mails partly damaged or lost.

FACILITIES (TOWNHEAD, ROCHDALE).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Postmaster-General why letters posted by business firms before 6.30 p.m. on Fridays at Townhead, Rochdale, are not delivered in London until 8 a.m. on the following Monday?

Major Tryon: Letters prepaid 1½d. and printed papers prepaid 1d. posted at Townhead before 6.30 p.m. on Friday secure first delivery in London on Saturday. Printed papers prepaid ½d. must be posted by 5 p.m. to secure the same treatment, and the letters to which the hon. Member refers were presumably ½d. matter posted late.

Mr. Kelly: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman go into this matter as there have been serious losses to these firms because of non-delivery? Surely it does not take two days for a letter to go to London?

Major Tryon: If the hon. Member will give me particulars, I shall be happy to go into them.

PROPOSED TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, SOUTH KENSINGTON.

Sir Servington Savery: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in the title deeds of the property known as Sidmouth Lodge, recently acquired by him, there is any covenant or restriction the effect of which is to prohibit the erection of a building other than a dwelling-house?

Major Tryon: No, Sir.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not a fact that other houses in the Boltons have such covenants?

Major Tryon: Other houses may have them, but in this case there are no restrictions.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Postmaster-General how many ex-service men have been employed as temporary postal workers at Rothesay during the last year; how many of these have been taken into the permanent service of the Post Office; what are the corresponding figures for non-ex-service men; and what is his policy generally with regard to the employment of ex-service men in the Post Office service?

Major Tryon: Ten ex-service men and nine non-ex-service men have been employed temporarily at Rothesay during the past year. Two ex-service men have been taken into the permanent service, but no non-ex-service men. Fifty per cent. of the vacancies for postmen throughout the country are reserved for ex-service men, and they also receive appointments to a number of other situations in the Post Office. Preference is given to ex-service men for employment as temporary postmen.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any air-raid precaution schemes have been prepared for the protection of the staff and Members of the House of Commons?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): Yes, Sir. A scheme for the protection of Members and staff of both Houses has been worked out in outline. It comprises the allocation of refuge accommodation, together with a plan of gas proofing, and a reserve of sand-bags for additional protective work. The fire-fighting arrangements will also be strengthened. A stock of gas-masks will be kept on the premises, and squads for rescue and clearance and decontamination work will be raised from the industrial staff employed on the site.

Mr. Davidson: Will any steps be taken to organise the Members of the House into fire squads or drill squads with buckets and spades; and will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that it is much easier to get a bucket inside this House than a spade?

Sir P. Sassoon: I will look into it.

REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.

Mrs. Tate: asked the hon. Member for Ipswich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, the retail price of chicken bought in quantity, as priced on the House of Commons menu of 6th December at 10s. 6d. and 11s. per bird.

Sir John Ganzoni: The price paid by the Kitchen Committee on 6th December for best quality Surrey fowls was 1s. 6d. per lb. of an average weight of about 4¼ lbs. which came to 6s. 6d. each.

Mrs. Tate: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have a letter from the largest suppliers of poultry in the country which shows that that statement is not in accordance with the facts?

Sir J. Ganzoni: The prevailing price on that day was the price that this Committee paid. If the hon. Lady can supply them at a much lower figure, we shall be only too delighted to deal with her.

Mrs. Tate: asked the hon. Member for Ipswich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, the retail price of the grapefruit served in the House of Commons dining-rooms on 6th December at 6d. per half portion.

Sir J. Ganzoni: The price paid by the Kitchen Committee on 6th December for Jaffa grape-fruit was 13s. 6d. per case of 80.

Mrs. Tate: If it is not possible for better food to be supplied at more reasonable prices in the House of Commons dining-rooms, could not the catering be put in the hands of a catering firm?

Sir J. Ganzoni: Owing to the heavy overhead expenses there are no catering firms, as far as we know, who will take the job on.

Miss Horsbrugh: asked the hon. Member for Ipswich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, which of the charges normally classed as running costs in a public restaurant, such as rent, rates, lighting, equipment, and wages, have to be met by the catering department of the House of Commons?

Sir J. Ganzoni: The cost of the following have to be borne by the Kitchen Committee—wages, salaries, health and pension insurances, china, earthenware, glass, cutlery, plate, table and all other linen, kitchen utensils and certain other items of kitchen equipment.

Miss Horsbrugh: Is it the case that all the gas and electricity for the cooking and refrigerating plants is supplied free?

Hon. Members: And no rates and taxes.

Sir J. Ganzoni: The hon. Lady is correctly informed, but the difficulty of the Kitchen Committee is that they had to find £9,756 last year for salaries and wages, of which £2,222 was paid when the House was not sitting.

Miss Horsbrugh: asked the hon. Member for Ipswich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what percentage of the selling price of food served in the dining rooms of the House of Commons represents the cost price of the raw materials?

Sir J. Ganzoni: The costs of raw materials vary a little each week. The percentage for the week ended 4th December, 1937, was 70.60 per cent. (of the receipts for food).

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS (REFRESHMENT PAVILIONS).

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, when the refreshment pavilions in Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens and Hampton Court are re-opened next spring, he will make arrangements that a customer shall be able to purchase an alcoholic drink without having also to buy a meal?

Sir P. Sassoon: Before such arrangements as those to which my hon. Friend refers can be made, the consent of the licensing justices must be obtained. If the caterer should desire to make the necessary application to the justices, I should not raise any objections.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT.

Sir F. Acland: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the policy laid down by the Ministry of Health that a baby should be breast fed for as long as possible and of the fact that, under the practice of his Department, no woman can receive unemployment benefit while her baby is being so fed, he will say what steps he is taking to amend this practice?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): It is not the case that unemployment benefit is never payable in such cases. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a decision by the Umpire which explains the conditions under which benefit may be drawn.

Sir F. Acland: Does that mean that normally benefit is not payable while the mother is feeding her child in what I understand to be the proper as well as the natural manner, or that benefit is normally payable while she is doing that?

Mr. Brown: After the right hon. Gentleman has considered the Umpire's decision, which goes back to 1923, perhaps he will consider whether he desires to pursue the matter further.

Mr. Logan: Does the Minister suggest that it would be better for mothers to give their children the bottle instead of letting them have the best milk that a child can have?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member also would like to look at the Umpire's decision.

Mr. Thorne: Will the Minister bear in mind that many mothers cannot give breast feeding to their children on account of being badly fed themselves?

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Assistance Board make any allowance to claimants who are subject to the waiting-period condition and are in need, or whether such claimants are to apply to the relieving officers of the public assistance authority?

Mr. E. Brown: The Board's officers are fully empowered to deal with applications from claimants who are subject to the waiting period condition and to make determinations in the light of all the circumstances of the case. In this connection, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 25th November last to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White).

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a dispute about this question in the London area, and will he make the inquiries as to what is the practice?

Mr. Brown: I am not aware of that. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars I shall be glad to look into it. The answer to which I have referred shows that during the week ending 12th November there were 2,194 cases in which allowances were granted.

Mr. Lawson: Could the right hon. Gentleman make this matter more public, as there is a dispute between the relieving officers and the officers of the Board on this matter?

Mr. Brown: I will certainly look into this matter.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (WOMEN).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of female workers in agriculture 21 years of age and over who were registered as unemployed during the 12 months ended 30th October, 1937, and the number who were in receipt of dependants' allowances?

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The following table gives the information desired, so far as it is available.

Women, aged 21–64, insured under the Agricultural Scheme, recorded as unemployed in Great Britain.


Date.
Total.
Number of applicants for agricultural benefit with claims authorised for dependants' benefit.


1936.




14th December
5,280
*


1937.




25th January
6,314
*


22nd February
5,702
96


15th March
5,625
*


19th April
2,335
*


24th May
1,688
28


21st June
957
*


26th July
1,158
*


23rd August
1,620
22


13th September
1,471
*


18th October
1,889
*


15th November
6,106
66


Notes.


(1) As from 1st February, 1937, private gardeners have been included within the agricultural scheme of unemployment insurance.


(2) The figures for September, October and November, 1937, have been compiled in accordance with the revised procedure for counting the unemployed under which persons subsequently found to be in employment at the date of the count are excluded.


*(3) The numbers of applicants with claims authorised for dependants' benefit are ascertained once a quarter.

SCOTLAND.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether His Majesty's Government are intending to act on the recommendation of the Scottish National Development Council's economic committee, to the effect that Glasgow and Dundee should be scheduled as Special Areas; and whether they will also consider including the depressed port of Leith and the North-East Scotland fishery towns


and take steps to promote an industrial estate for the East of Scotland on the lines of North Hillington?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. It was made clear during the passage of the Special Areas Amendment Act last Session that it was not intended to make any alteration in the Areas defined in the Act of 1934. With regard to the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that assistance towards the establishment of factories outside the Special Areas can be given only in the circumstances set out in Sections 5 and 6 of the recent Act, copies of which I am sending to him.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very serious situation, is it not possible for the Scottish Office to take extra special measures or to get the necessary changes made in the Special Areas Act?

Mr. Wedderburn: I note the hon. Member's implied tribute to what has been done in the Special Areas.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is not the Under-Secretary of State aware that since the Scottish Office came to their decision, conditions have become acute, owing to the depression in the jute industry in Dundee, and will he go into the matter to see whether anything can be done to relieve the depression that exists, particularly in Dundee?

Mr. Wedderburn: Not under the Special Areas Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES AND COST OF LIVING.

Mr. Cary: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider publishing comparable figures of employment, wages, and cost of living over an extended period, to enable Members to study their correlation?

Mr. E. Brown: Figures are regularly given, in the quarterly Supplement to the Ministry of Labour Gazette, showing the changes in the estimated numbers of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, in employment, in the average level of rates of wages, and in the average level of working-class costs of living, quarter by quarter over a series of years. The latest issue of this Supplement, which was included

in the current (November) issue of the Gazette, contains quarterly figures covering the period from the beginning of 1928 to the third quarter of 1937. A chart illustrating the movements of employment, rates of wages, cost of living, and retail food prices has been prepared, and arrangements are being made to exhibit it in the Tea Room for the information of Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — TILE AND BRICK INDUSTRY, SHROPSHIRE.

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: asked the Minister of Labour the wages and conditions existing in the tile and brick industry in the Broseley-Jacfield area of Shropshire; whether he has knowledge of the differences which exist between employers and employed in this industry; and whether machinery for negotiations exists and is being used?

Mr. E. Brown: I am not in a position to state the rate of wages and conditions of employment prevailing in the brick and tile industry in the Broseley-Jacfield area of Shropshire. I am aware of the differences to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers and my Department have been in touch with both sides. The firms concerned are not parties to the negotiating machinery which exists in the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received alleging the unsatisfactory working of the constitution of Ceylon; whether there exists any considerable demand by the citizens of Ceylon for fundamental changes; and whether he is proposing to make any changes in the near future?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have received representations from a number of societies and individuals in Ceylon suggesting changes in various directions in the constitution. I gather that the desire for changes is fairly widespread, although there is at present no general agreement as to the nature of the amendments desired. I have asked the new Governor of Ceylon to report to me fully on the question when he has had time to make himself familiar with local conditions.

Mr. Creech Jones: Are we to take it from that that there is no intention at the present time of appointing a Royal Commission to examine this problem?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As to what the procedure for examining all these many representations ought to be, I will await the recommendations of the new Governor.

Mr. Lunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that there is not any recommendation to do away with the constitution?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have had representations about the committee system, about the representation of minorities and a variety of subjects arising out of the constitution.

Mr. Lunn: For amendment?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes.

Sir H. Croft: Is the right hon. Member aware that four years ago, on a Motion by the hon. Member for Bournemouth in this House, it was decided by only a small majority not to send out a committee of inquiry at that time, and that matters have undoubtedly deteriorated since?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I cannot accept the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question. I think there is a wide-spread desire for certain changes, but how far those changes are in the direction of what was represented by the hon. and gallant Member at that time I should not like to say.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not the case that all the representations have been made by the Government, and none by the Opposition?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Oh, no, it is the contrary.

Mr. de Rothschild: Will the report of the Governor be published?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I should not think so. It would be concerned largely with the question of whether a commission should be sent out from this country or what the character of the changes asked for by different sections of the people should be.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the memorial from an influential committee in Ceylon asking for a Royal Commission to inquire into the workings of the constitution of Ceylon; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) on 9th December.

Sir A. Knox: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that even the "Times" newspaper stated that this committee represented every interest in the community in Ceylon, and has not that committee stated that it is an absolute necessity to send out a Royal Commission owing to the colossal failure of the Constitution?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the word "influential" in this question is synonymous with the word "reactionary"?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, I cannot accept that statement. Those who made the representations include the leader of the local bar, two former elected Ministers and like persons.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. Maclay: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that France, Russia, and Great Britain are the only great Powers remaining in the League of Nations, he will assume the initiative in taking steps to terminate the present form of the League and Covenant and thereafter endeavour to bring together all of the great Powers into a new form of League of Nations, the primary duty of which would be to consider, study, and bring world opinion to bear on economic courses of action likely to mitigate the causes of war in the world?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would remind my hon. Friend that the League has set up a committee to study the application of the principles of the Covenant. This committee will no doubt be concerned with all aspects of that question. In the circumstances I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by action such as that suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maclay: While understanding the Prime Minister's reply, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that there is a growing public opinion in this country that something should be attempted soon to put the League on a more practical basis, rather than leave it to die in its present form?

Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not precisely because the League of Nations exists to mitigate the causes of war that both Japan and Italy have thought fit to dissociate themselves from membership of it, and is it not a fact that although six nations are outside the League there are 57 inside?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE (HONG KONG).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence when the last joint inquiry by representatives of the three Defence Services into the question of the defence of Hong Kong last took place; and whether he is satisfied that the British Forces there are sufficient for the defence of the Colony, having regard to the existing state of affairs in the Far East?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): The defences of all British defended ports overseas including the port mentioned in the question are kept constantly under review by the appropriate sub-committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence, on which all three Services are represented. All the relative circumstances are taken into account.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the advisability of reinforcing the China Squadron recently been under consideration, and is it not very desirable to have some capital ships in those waters at the present moment?

Sir T. Inskip: That is a different question. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put it down.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: May we not have a more specific answer as to whether the Minister is satisfied that British Forces are sufficient to defend the Colony?

Sir T. Inskip: I have nothing to add to the statement which I have made.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has not the strength of the China Squadron a

direct bearing upon the defence of Hong Kong?

Sir T. Inskip: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question down.

Mr. Lawson: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the question refers to the three Defence Services in their relation to Hong Kong, and can he tell us whether the equipment is quite good and the supplies are reliable in that part of the world?

Sir T. Inskip: I have already said that it is impossible for me to add to the answer which I have given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does not a question relating to the defence of Hong Kong imply questions of the strength of the China Squadron?

Oral Answers to Questions — CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances, and subject to what restrictions, does he take action to remit sentences of flogging?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The remission of a sentence of corporal punishment imposed by a court of law can be effected only by the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. There are various considerations which it is the duty of the Home Secretary to take into account in advising on the exercise of this prerogative—one being that only on special grounds is it right to interfere with a sentence passed by a competent court which has heard the evidence and is responsible by law for deciding what is the appropriate method of dealing with the offender.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the idea that is prevalent that the Home Office cannot interfere in a case of flogging except on medical grounds, will the Home Secretary make it clear that the Home Office have power to stop a flogging on other than medical grounds? Am I to understand that the Home Office has no power to stop a flogging on other than medical grounds?

Mr. Lloyd: I think my answer was quite specific.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACCIDENT, AYLESFORD.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information in connection with the accident at the Aylesford, Kent, pottery, on Tuesday, at which one man was killed and one seriously injured; who was responsible for the timber being withdrawn from the concrete ceiling; and what was the cause of the long delay before the men could be released?

Mr. Lloyd: I am informed that a line of drying tunnels was being demolished and the roof of the twelfth unexpectedly collapsed. It afterwards appeared that the construction was somewhat different from that of the eleven which had already been brought down successfully. There was no question of withdrawing timber. Cutting away the fallen concrete to release the injured men necessarily took some time.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

METROPOLITAN CHIEF-INSPECTOR'S RETIREMENT.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Home Secretary what was the period of service of Chief-Inspector Barker, recently retired from the Metropolitan Police; and whether any offer was made to him to continue in his position for a further period of years?

Mr. Lloyd: Chief-Inspector Barker will retire from the force early next month, when he will become entitled to the maximum pension for his rank. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no offer of the kind referred to was made to him.

Mr. Kelly: Is it now the policy of the Government not to offer any inducement to these young officers to remain in the Service?

Mr. Lloyd: The policy was laid down by Parliament some years ago, and is now being carried out.

OFFICERS AND STAFFS, SCOTLAND YARD.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the discontent among the officers and staffs in Scotland Yard; and what steps are being taken to deal with the grievances, particularly the giving of superior positions to new men over the head of experienced officers with years of service?

Mr. Lloyd: The Commissioner is confident that the officers of the Metropolitan Police Force have accepted in a completely loyal spirit the changes made in 1933 with the approval of Parliament and he has constantly under consideration the need of ensuring, as far as is possible, that no individual prospects shall be adversely affected.

Mr. Kelly: Am I to understand that there is no answer to the last part of the question in which I asked whether steps are being taken to deal with grievances which have been raised by the men in Scotland Yard?

Mr. Lloyd: All grievances are naturally dealt with under the Regulations.

Mr. Kelly: Had not the Minister better look into the matter again?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLITICAL PROCESSIONS, EAST LONDON.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to continue the existing prohibition on the holding of political processions in the East End of London?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): The existing Order prohibiting the holding of public processions of a political character in certain areas of the East End of London will expire at midnight to-night. I have carefully considered, in consultation with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, whether it is necessary to continue for a further period the prohibition of political processions in those areas. The Commissioner advises me that the situation in the East End is still such as to make it necessary to have recourse to the powers conferred on him by Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Public Order Act, 1936, and he has asked my consent to his making an Order under that Sub-section renewing the prohibition for a further period of three months. I regret the necessity of such a restriction on the freedom of political procession, but, in view of the risk of serious public disorder as the result of clashes between the two rival factions—clashes which neither party has hitherto shown any disposition to avoid—I am convinced that the time has not yet come when, in the


public interest, it would be safe to discontinue the prohibition. I have accordingly conveyed to the Commissioner my consent to his making a fresh Order renewing the prohibition for a further period of three months.

Mr. Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman not limit the prohibition to the parties that he assumes are responsible for the difficulties in the East End of London, and not deny to all political parties the right of procession?

Mr. Gallacher: Would he not agree to apply the ban to the processions of those whom the people in the East End of London believe to be responsible for the trouble?

Sir S. Hoare: It would be impossible to give an answer to the second supplementary question, because it is difficult to ascertain the views of the inhabitants of East London. They are extremely divided on the subject. In answer to the first supplementary question, I very much regret the necessity of this restriction. It is, however, necessary to apply it to all political processions. It is not applied to meetings, or to such processions as Labour and trade union demonstrations if they are of a non-political character.

Mr. G. Strauss: Has not the Commissioner ample power to stop any procession likely to lead to a breach of the peace, without this wholesale banning of every kind of procession?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I am advised by the police that in particular districts of London these additional powers are required.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that British savings lent to foreign public authorities have been lost although their defence has been left by His Majesty's Government to the Council of Foreign Bondholders; that this policy has resulted in official intervention coming too late; and whether he will, when British foreign investments are threatened, take the initiative in future by inviting information from the Council of

Foreign Bondholders without waiting for their invitation to intervene after they have failed?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): My right hon. Friend cannot accept the view that losses have been caused to British investors by delay on the part of the Council of Foreign Bondholders in invoking the assistance of His Majesty's Government. The Council are always in very close touch with the Treasury and the Foreign Office, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that it would not be in the interests of those concerned to modify the existing procedure in the manner suggested in the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONETARY POLICY.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that plentiful cheap money has not counteracted the new trade depression in America, and that the theory of managed cheap money has failed as a remedy in America; and will he have prepared, as an alternative to relying upon the theory of managed cheap money, another corrective designed to combat the threat of trade recession here when money here is so cheap that it cannot be made cheaper to operate as a stimulus to trade?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: No, Sir. As regards the first part of the question, it would be wrong to conclude that conditions in the United States are other than greatly better than those four years ago. In this country the policy of cheap money has greatly contributed to the restoration of prosperity, and the measures of the Government in many other spheres have been directed, and will continue to be directed, to the maintenance of business confidence.

Mr. De la Bère: If money is so cheap, why cannot the Government lend money to agriculture at 2½ per cent.?

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it is not cheap money that is causing the trade depression in America, but that there are other factors?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, Sir; there are other causes.

Mr. MacLaren: What are they?

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR ACCIDENTS (STREET LIGHTING).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any evidence to show that the most modern systems of street lighting reduce the number of accidents in which death or injury are inflicted by motor cars?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): No, Sir; I have no such evidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIAN REFUGEES.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, to avoid any departure from the British traditional practice of granting the right of asylum to refugees, he will take steps to prevent the enforced return of Abyssinians to territory under Italian domination?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There is no suggestion that the refugees now being maintained in British territory will be compelled to return to Abyssinia against their will.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is his projected programme for the building of cruisers, destroyers, torpedo-boats, submarines, and other naval craft during the ensuing year; when the orders for these are likely to be placed; and what vessels it is intended should be built at Greenock?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin): I am unable at present to give any indication of next year's new construction programme, particulars of which will, in accordance with normal practice, be announced when the Navy Estimates for that year are presented to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY DISASTER, CASTLECARY.

Mr. Cassels: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make in connection with the railway accident which occurred on the late afternoon of Friday last at Castlecary, Dumbartonshire, when 35 persons were killed and 67 others injured; whether it is intended that a public

Government inquiry or an inquiry by the Procurator Fiscal for the county of Dumbarton shall be instituted, and if so when; and whether the coaches involved were of wooden construction?

Mr. Burgin: Yes. Sir. The London and North Eastern Railway Company inform me that at about 4.40 p.m. on Friday last the 4.3 p.m. express passenger train from Edinburgh to Glasgow ran into the rear of the 2 p.m. express passenger train from Dundee to Glasgow, while the latter train was stationary just beyond Castlecary, Dumbartonshire. It is with the deepest regret that I have to state that, so far as is at present known, 34 persons were killed and one has since died; 24 were detained in hospital, and 68 have been reported as suffering from minor injuries or shock. I have already appointed the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways to hold an inquiry. He visited the scene of the accident on Sunday, and will open his inquiry at Edinburgh on Thursday next, the 16th instant. I am not yet in a position to give information as to the construction of the coaches.
The House will wish me to take this opportunity of expressing the deep sympathy which we all must feel with those affected by the accident.

Mr. Cassells: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous reply, may I ask him whether, if it is ascertained that the coaches were of wooden construction, in the light of the fact that steel coaches have a distinct advantage over wooden coaches, he will state what his future policy will be in that connection?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to state how far it is proposed to go with business to-night in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The Prime Minister: As far as to-day's proceedings are concerned, I may say, first, that it is not intended to ask the House to sit beyond midnight. Secondly, I would suggest that we should dispose of Clauses 4 and 5 not later than dinner time, so that we can begin Clause 6 at a reasonable hour and, if possible, obtain that Clause by midnight.

Mr. Attlee: May I say that it is impossible for us to agree straight off with that proposal? It must depend upon how the Debate progresses.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on the Coal Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 112.

Division No. 50.]
AYES.
[3.59 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Drewe, C.
Lloyd, G. W.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Loftus, P. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Duggan, H. J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Apsley, Lord
Dunglass, Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Ellis, Sir G.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Maitland, A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Elmley, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Markham, S. F.


Balniel, Lord
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Marsden, Commander A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Errington, E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Fleming, E. L.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bernays, R. H.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Furness, S. N.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Blair, Sir R.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Moreing, A. C.


Blaker, Sir R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Bossom, A. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester).


Boulton, W. W.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Munro, P.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Grant-Ferris, R.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Bracken, B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Brass, Sir W.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bull, B. B.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Burghley, Lord
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Patrick, C. M.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Peake, O.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hambro, A. V.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Butcher, H. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Petherick, M.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Pilkington, R.


Cary, R. A.
Harvey, Sir G.
Plugge, Capt. L. F


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hepworth, J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Channon, H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)



Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ramsbotham, H.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Holmes, J. S.
Rankin, Sir R.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hopkinson, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hewitt, Dr. A. B.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hulbert, N. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hunter, T.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cranborne, Viscount
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Salmon, Sir I.


Crooke, J. S.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Salt, E. W.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Cross, R. H.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Crossley, A. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Latham, Sir P.
Sandys, E. D.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Dawson, Sir P.
Leigh, Sir J.
Savery, Sir Servington


De Chair, S. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Scott, Lord William


De la Bère, R.
Levy, T.
Selley, H. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, O.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Denville, Alfred
Liddall, W. S.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lipson, D. L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Doland, G. F.
Little, Sir E. Graham.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.




Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wells, S. R.


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Thomas, J. P. L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Touche, G. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Spens, W. P.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wise, A. R.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Wakefield, W. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wright, Wing Commander J. A. C.


Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.



Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tasker, Sir R. I.
Wayland, Sir W. A
Mr. James Stuart and


Tate, Mavis C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Mr. Grimston.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardie, Agnes
Ridley, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barnes, A. J.
Hicks, E. G.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Barr, J.
Jagger, J.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Batey, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Cassells, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Silverman, S. S.


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Simpson, F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dalton, H.
Lee, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Debbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacNeill Weir, L.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walker, J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mathers, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
White, H. Graham


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. Attlee: Mr. Speaker, I desire, with your permission, to make a personal statement. Last week, in my absence, without any notice to me, without inquiry, on the basis of an inaccurate newspaper report, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) placed upon the Order Paper a Motion attacking my honour and charging me with a breach of faith. A Motion inviting this House to pass a Vote of Censure upon a private Member for an action not arising out of the business of this House is a very unusual proceeding. To attack a fellow-Member in such a way in his absence is, I believe, unprecedented. This Motion has, however, received the support of a

few other hon. Gentlemen. It is impossible for a Member of this House to allow such an imputation made with such publicity, to remain on the Order Paper unchallenged.
The basis of the charge appears to be that because at a luncheon party given in my honour by the Commander-in-Chief of the Spanish Army, in response to a speech of welcome, I expressed my sympathy with the Spanish Government and my intention of informing the people of this country of the facts of the situation, I had thereby violated an undertaking given before my departure from this country. I went to Spain on the invitation of the Spanish Prime Minister, the head of a Government with which His Majesty's


Government are in friendly relations. My views on the Spanish question are well known in this country. They are also well known to every Spaniard who can read a newspaper. I believe in the justice of the cause of the Spanish Government. I have done, and shall continue to do, all that I can to persuade the people of this country to share those views. Before proceeding to Spain I signed an undertaking in the following terms:
I undertake that nothing shall take place in the course of my visit that could be considered as implying any intervention by me on behalf of either side of the present dispute in Spain.
This is the common form signed by all persons proceeding from this country to any part of Spanish territory. It applies to business men, journalists and relief workers. It is exacted from British subjects by His Majesty's Government in pursuance of the policy of non-intervention adopted by them.
The assumption underlying the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Lincoln is that the signing of this undertaking imposes upon the signatory the duty of refraining, while in Spain, from expressing any opinion in favour either of the Government in Spain or of the rebels. I cannot possibly accept such an interpretation. If such were the meaning of this undertaking it would be one which no British Government ought to impose and which no Member of Parliament who had regard to the rights and privileges of Members could possibly accept. It would mean that a Member of Parliament, of any party, must not express his own opinions, but must reflect the policy of the Government; that he may go to Spain, but only in a muzzle. I do not believe for one moment that this was the purpose aimed at in exacting the undertaking. If I had thought this to be the meaning of the undertaking, I would never have signed it, for I could not have implemented it.
Obviously, a Member of Parliament, especially the leader of a party, is bound, in the course of conversation, or on occasions of more formality, such as the exchange of courtesies, to express opinions on the merits of the contest in Spain. Journalistic enterprise is such that it is impossible to avoid publicity being given to such opinions. It is not possible to ensure

the accuracy of these reports. It would also be manifestly ridiculous for a Member to express positive views in an interview at Perpignan and negative ones in Barcelona. In my view, the undertaking had reference only to taking positive action in breach of the conditions of non-intervention, such as the importation of war materials or taking part in hostilities.
It cannot be too strongly emphasised that a private Member of Parliament does not by his words or actions involve the British Government, but that he is a free man with the right of freely expressing his opinions. In his Motion, the hon. Member for Lincoln has specifically referred to me as "the Leader of His Majesty's Official Opposition," and seems to imply that this places me in a special category. The Leader of the Opposition is a private Member. He owes no allegiance to the Government. No action of his can in any way implicate the Government. He is responsible only to his constituents and to the Members from whom he derives his position. He is, I think, under a special obligation to defend the rights and privileges of private Members, particularly the right of every Member to express his opinion freely on all matters of public policy. I make no excuse or apology for anything said or done by me in the course of my visit to Spain. The particular words of which the hon. Member for Lincoln complains are inaccurately reported, but I make no attempt to shelter myself by alleging misrepresentation. Of course, on the few occasions when I made speeches in Spain, while I abstained from criticising Government policy, I did state my sympathy for the Spanish people and the Spanish Government, and I did state the intention of the party which I have the honour to lead to do their utmost in every legitimate way to assist them in their struggle. I claim that, as a Member of this House, I have every right to do so. I utterly repudiate the suggestion that in so doing I have broken any pledge.

The Prime Minister: I rise only to say this. The right hon. Gentleman has made his personal statement on his visit to Spain. I hope the House will now accept this statement, and take what seems to me the right and most dignified course, namely, to let it rest there.

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 9th December.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Property and rights with which, and matters subject to which, coal is to be acquired.)

Mr. Tinker: rose—

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member rise to move the Amendment in the names of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and himself—in page 4, line 19, leave out Subsection (4)? I feel a doubt whether I ought to select that Amendment: I do not quite understand its object. If the hon. Member will give me an explanation, I shall be able to say whether I select it or not, but perhaps he will bear in mind, in giving that explanation the question whether, if the Sub-section were left out, it would so upset the whole of the Clause as to amount really to a negative of the Clause.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (4).
I can well understand your feelings, Sir Dennis, because I am in a similar position myself. I wish to move the deletion of the Sub-section because of its doubtful character and of the fact that I have not been able to grasp its meaning, so that I may obtain an explanation of what the Sub-section means. Clause 4 deals with the change over of property rights and that kind of thing, and Subsection (4) goes on to say:
The vesting of any coal, mine of coal, property or rights in the Commission shall take effect,"—
subject to certain conditions. I have spent some considerable time in trying to get the whole thing together by referring to Part I and Part II of the Second Schedule, and as yet I have not been able to do it. Therefore, as I am in a difficulty, I am obliged to turn to the promoters of the Bill and ask them to give an explanation to the Committee and to state their understanding of what it means. It. is for that purpose that I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (4).

4.12 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in not being completely clear at the first reading of the purpose of this Sub-section. If the Committee will look at Clause 3 (1) they will see that this machinery of transfer starts with a general vesting of the fee simple in the Commission subject to matters thereinafter mentioned. Clause 4 adopts the machinery of the imaginary conveyance. The advantage of that is that under the Law of Property Act it is laid down what normally passes with a conveyance, and in Clause 4 (3) the Committee will see that property and rights, which would normally pass with a conveyance shall pass to the Commission subject to certain exceptions which do not matter at the moment. The purpose of Sub-section (4) is really directed not so much to the property which would pass, that is to say, the benefit of any rights which may adhere or be annexed to the coal, but to the possible burdens which may be annexed to that coal in relation to other land. For instance—I take an imaginary case which may, or may not occur in practice, of land adjoining a mine which might have a legal easement of a right to drain water into the mine. This Subsection has made it quite clear that the rights of non-conveying parties are unaffected; that is to say, if there are any rights as against the coal in adjoining landowners, they remain and are unaffected.
On coming to the Second Schedule, it will be found—I cannot deal with it except by reference now, but I mention it in case the hon. Gentleman wants to raise a point upon it when we come to the Schedule—that the matters dealt with in paragraph (3) of Part I of the Second Schedule are the sort of right which would be covered by this Sub-section. The present Sub-section really makes completely clear what otherwise might be implied. The whole machinery being complicated, we thought it right to insert the express provision that the vesting of the coal should take effect subject to all matters or all rights outstanding in third parties. Otherwise someone might have sought to base an argument on the general words vesting of the fee simple in Clause 3. It is really a technical point, and that is the reason why it is inserted.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I think that the Committee will thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation. If I continue the Debate it is to clear up one point that might possibly lead to misunderstanding later. Like the hon. and learned Member I can only refer to the Schedule by reference. He, no doubt, will have noticed that there appears on the Order Paper, page 444, an Amendment in my name and the names of my hon. Friends to leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Second Schedule. I have no knowledge of and no right to anticipate what the Chairman's decision will be as to the calling of that Amendment. In case it were called I should like it to be clear now that the effect of not passing the present Amendment and deleting this Sub-section will not be to preclude myself and my hon. Friends from moving the Amendment which stands in our names should it be called. The Second Schedule does refer to these quasi-easements, and so on, and the effect of our Amendment would be to cut down a good deal the effect of the Sub-section as it stands. I quite appreciate that the Sub-section is necessary in order to implement, on the basis of an imaginary conveyance, the other part of the Clause, but I should not like to allow the Subsection to stand unchallenged if the effect were to preclude us from moving our Amendment.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged, as my hon. Friend was, to the hon. and learned Gentleman for clearing this matter up. This Amendment was put down for the purpose of elucidating the point at issue. I am not satisfied about the reference to the Second Schedule.

The Attorney-General: I should have said paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (3).

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is very difficult for the Committee to consider the Clause to which the Amendment relates without reference to the Second Schedule. I agree that we cannot discuss the Second Schedule at this stage, but may I ask whether, as this Clause relates primarily to the withdrawal of support in certain circumstances, in such circumstances additional compensation requires to be paid? I gather from the reference in the

Second Schedule that there are contingencies in which compensation is provided for. The question I desire to put is, whether in these circumstances the compensation which has to be paid is included in the global figure?

4.19 p.m.

The Attorney-General: It is not for me to say whether any particular Amendment will be in order, but I think that I can say this. As a matter of the drafting of this Clause, these words would have been inserted even if there had not been the reservations in the Schedule.

Mr. Silverman: Would they be just as relevant and necessary suppose the Amendment I propose were to be accepted by the Committee?

The Attorney-General: I would rather leave that, because I am ashamed to say that I have got a certain way with the Amendments, but not as far as having studied the Amendment to which the hon. Member refers. These words would be appropriate here even without the reservation in the Schedule. As far as the right to support is concerned, that is outside this Sub-section. For drafting reasons, which will be appreciated when we come to the Second Schedule, the right to support is dealt with in Part II of the Second Schedule. I think that it will be found, certainly so far as the discussion of Amendments is concerned, subject to the Chair, the code is to be found in Part II of the Second Schedule. The passage by the Committee of these general words could not have any limitation on the fullest discussion as to the right of support which will be dealt with when we come to the Second Schedule. I hope that that satisfies hon. Gentlemen.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Harold Mitchell: While we are on this Amendment there is one question I would like to put. In some cases water is being extracted from old shafts for commercial purposes. I have studied the Bill rather carefully, but I am not quite clear whether rights of that kind would be vested in the Commission, and, as far as I understand it, the Commission would not be empowered to dispose of water. I would very much like to ask the Attorney-General whether that point is covered or not.

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Member's point will, come better on the


Schedule. It is quite obvious that if there is anything he wants to alter, he could not do it by an alteration of this Clause. He would have to do it on the Schedule.

Mr. Mitchell: I will raise it later.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, at the end, to add:
(5) Where a person who is deemed to be a conveying party to such a conveyance, as is referred to in Sub-section (1) of this Section, though being interested in any coal or mine of coal, has in respect of such coal or mine, or his interest therein, entered into or undertaken to observe or perform any covenant, agreement, or obligation (restrictive or otherwise) which is subsisting at the vesting date, and the benefit of which is not vested in the Commission by this Act, the Commission shall indemnify him and his estate and effects against all actions, proceedings, costs, damages, claims, and demands on account of any breach of such covenant, agreement, or obligation.
This Amendment follows very conveniently on the explanation which the Attorney-General has just given to the Committee. When the coal or coal mines are transferred from their present owners to the Commission they will, in some cases, carry with them certain obligations which their previous owners have entered into with third parties. Some of these obligations may arise as a result of law. The third party may have had a right which has existed for a sufficiently long time for him to be able to claim it by virtue of law. But in most cases in connection with coal mines, third-party obligations are generally originally created by deeds between the coalowners and third parties. Last week the case of the Wedgwood factory having been erected on a piece of surface with coal underneath was quoted, and it was pointed out that the owners had to buy a stratum of coal to keep the factory up. Instead of buying the coal they could have bought the surface and entered into a covenant or obligation with the owner that thereafter the coal should not be worked so as not to let down that factory. Similarly you can have a number of obligations. When the coal is vested in the Commission, the Commission will take over the coal and the coal mines subject to these obligations so far as they know

of them, but there is no right for these third parties to register their rights against the coal at the present time. It is left to the coalowners to disclose to what obligations they hold the coal subject, but there will be a large number of existing rights.
If the Commission or their agents commit a breach of these obligations, undoubtedly the third party will have the right of action against the Commission, but they will also have a right—and a much easier right—against the original owners because of the covenant they had entered into with them. It will be an action which, as the lawyers say, will lie in covenant, and it will be a nice, simple one, merely a case of proving that the covenant has been broken, and asking for damages. If it were not an imaginary conveyance—if it were a real conveyance drafted by competent lawyers, in every case in which there was such an obligation to a third party the conveyance would undoubtedly contain an obligation to indemnify the owners against any breaches subsequently committed by them or their successors in total once the coal was made over to the Commission. Therefore, we think that there should be put into the Bill a provision that the Commission should be liable if a breach is committed, and to indemnify the previous owners. It would enable them to protect themselves by bringing in the Commission if an action were brought as the third party have a right to bring it. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to agree either to this provision or some analogous provision being inserted here or elsewhere in the Bill.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I rise to support this Amendment in view of the fact that later on I have on the Order Paper an Amendment dealing with subsidence. Because of that I am anxious that something of this character should go into the Bill.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: I do not know whether I shall be in order, but I should like to inquire from the Attorney-General or the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment, what precisely is meant by the Amendment. Not being a legal man I am not quite clear on the point. In every mining district there are coal mines


which have been operated for a number of years and coal seams have become either partially or completely exhausted. There are covenants by which the owners of property on the surface are entitled to compensation, due to subsidence. If the coal has already been worked, partially or wholly, under the tenements on the surface, from whom are the owners of those tenements, or whatever they may be, to seek compensation in the future. The benefits of royalties on the coal worked have already been enjoyed by royalty owners in the past. Is it proposed by this Amendment that the Commission shall carry an obligation which should have been met by the royalties already paid. As I understand the Amendment, it may mean that the Commission may be charged with a potential liability already incurred by the existing royalty owners.

Mr. Spens: This provision relates only to the future. As regards the past, obligations which have been incurred by the royalty owners, have, or should have, been paid for. The first part of the hon. Member's question as to what will be the position as regards a surface which is now subsiding on account of past excavations, does not arise, but there may be future mining in the same mine, and it may be that the mining of a lower shaft may cost further subsidence. That, I think we are all agreed, is dealt with in the second part of the First Schedule, and it can be more fully discussed there. This Amendment has not much to do with subsidence. It has to do rather with other rights to which the owner of the coal has made the coal subject for the benefit of adjoining owners of one sort or another. It may relate to drainage in regard to some other mine, not a coal mine, and he may have put himself under a legal obligation that nothing shall be done in the future to interfere with those rights. If he has done that, he is liable to be shot at at law by his next door neighbour if those rights are thereafter interfered with. Therefore, if the Commission or the Commission's lessees after they have taken possession commit any breach of those obligations the particular covenanting party ought to be fully protected from the result of any such action and should be indemnified by the Commission.

Mr. Mainwaring: I thank the hon. and learned Member, but I was concerned with the other point, that the subsidences will continue in these areas for years to

come on account of coal already worked. How are you to divide the responsibility of the past royalty owners or the existing royalty owners as regards coal already exploited and the continued exploitation of coal in the same area by the Commission? How is the tenement owner on the surface to secure his damages on account of surface subsidence in the future? The whole thing is terribly involved, and I want to know under what Clause this matter may be adequately discussed.

The Chairman: The hon. Member's question really does not arise here. I think it is quite clear that this proposed Amendment is only to provide what would be an ordinary piece of machinery in the course of an ordinary conveyance from the existing royalty owners to somebody purchasing from them. Therefore, it is only a question of machinery which can be discussed now, and not any principle as to the form in which a lease is to be granted.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. As this Amendment provides for indemnification, surely it is proper to inquire as to the amount involved?

The Chairman: I still do not think that the question of the amount arises. This Amendment would put on the Commission after the purchase of the royalties a liability which would be on the royalty owner if the present royalty owner had continued to be responsible.

Mr. Silverman: Further to that point of Order. As I read the Amendment, if it were passed would not the effect be to put upon the Commission a liability which would not lie upon them if the Amendment were not passed?

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is now putting as a point of Order something that is not a point of Order. It is not my business to explain an Amendment beyond a certain point. I have to form my own view as to the meaning of an Amendment in order to decide whether a particular point is or is not in order, but I cannot be responsible for explaining Amendments beyond what is the duty of the Chair—beyond pointing out what is in order and what is not in order.

Mr. Silverman: What I am asking is whether in your view the passing of this Amendment would lead to an increased charge upon the Commission?

The Chairman: No. There would be no increased charge making the Amendment out of order.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: May I raise this point with the hon. and learned Member? This matter is highly complicated and not easy for hon. Members to understand. In the Amendment is there not a potential liability put on to the Commission. If so, what is the charge likely to be imposed on the revenues of the Commission? In so far as there is a charge imposed on the revenues of the Commission, how far will that affect subsequent clauses which relate to the utilisation of revenues for the purpose of reducing rents? I think that is a proper point, on which the hon. and learned Member might enlighten us.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I understand that the object of the Amendment is to make perfectly sure that in certain eventualities obligations which now rest upon the royalty owner shall be undertaken by the Commission.

Mr. Spens: Yes.

Mr. Griffiths: A Registration Act has already been passed under which every royalty owner is invited, and I suppose at some stage will be compelled or instructed, to register particulars of the royalties he holds. Any particulars given by a coalowner in respect of property he owns from a royalty owner will surely not be given without the approval and consent of the royalty owner. Therefore, the royalty owner will know of it already. If that be so, is it not his business to register it in the particulars that he will place in the hands of the Commission when the Commission take over the property? In view of the fact that he will have registered his claims and agreements, what is the need for this Amendment to make the matter further sure? If there is any obligation which the Commission can get out of afterwards it will be because the royalty owner has not taken trouble to register the particulars. I do not think it is the business of this Committee to protect the royalty owners any more than they are already being protected.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: If it be as laid down by the Chair, and we must accept that

Ruling, namely, that the effect of passing the Amendment would not increase the charge allowed by the Bill, then I am afraid that I fail to understand what purpose the Amendment can serve. I think I put the point right when I say that the hon. and learned Member is anxious to protect, in the first place, people with interests, which interests they are not permitted by the Registration Act to register—the interests of people who would have a claim against the royalty owner on a covenant, which covenant would remain valid even after the royalty owner had conveyed his property, by statutory or imaginary covenant, to the Commission. What is being proposed in the Amendment is that there shall be added to the imaginary conveyance a new clause of indemnity, whereby the Commission will indemnify the royalty owner against claims made upon the royalty owner arising out of covenants which ought to have been provided for by the royalty owner himself. I understand that it is not in reference to anything which has taken place before the date of the statutory conveyance, or the imaginary conveyance, but things which the Commission itself may do thereafter. If that be so, and if the effect of passing this Amendment is to make the Commission indemnify the royalty owner against claims made by a third party, and if without this Amendment the Commission would not have to indemnify the royalty owner, then I find myself completely at a loss to understand the machinery proposed by the hon. and learned Member, if the effect of passing the Amendment cannot increase the charge for which the Commission is made responsible under the Bill. In that case the passing of the Amendment would be completely nugatory, because then the Commission would be made liable to indemnify somebody out of funds which do not exist.

The Chairman: The hon. Member asked me whether the Amendment was out of order because it would increase the charge as defined in the Financial Resolution. The question of what amount of money might be paid does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: I am grateful for your explanation, but it seems to me that the position is not affected in that way. Something is contemplated the result of which may be to involve the Commission


in the making of payments of money further than the payments provided for by the Clause as it stands. The Amendment makes no provision for the raising of further and other funds out of which the further and other charge could be met. If that be so, and if there is no way in which this Amendment can increase the charge on the Treasury, then I find myself completely at a loss to understand what is the machinery which the hon. and learned Member proposes in order to discharge what he invites the Committee to accept as something which the Commission ought to shoulder. I quite understand what the hon. and learned Member says, that if there was a formal conveyance, not a statutory, imaginary conveyance, he would expect the conveyance to include a clause of indemnity. But he is suggesting in his Amendment that it should be added to the imaginary conveyance, which without the Amendment would not contain any such indemnity. I shall be interested to hear how he proposes to equip the Commission with the necessary funds to discharge such a duty.

4.46 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I understand that the position of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) is that in the case that he has put forward it would be reasonable to insert a provision which would indemnify the conveying party in case a claim is made against them when responsibility has passed to the Commission. The Commission will take over the property and the rights attaching to the property, and in some cases it is conceivable that there may still be some responsibilities remaining on the conveying party. It would be manifestly unfair if the damage arose through some breach of these rights by the Commission; it is a different matter if it is a breach by the conveying parties. The obligation has passed to the Commission, and it is right that the liability should fall on them. I think the case which the hon. and learned Member made out is right. The liability should fall on the Commission in cases like that. I do not think this is the point on which to raise the question as to where the money is to come from, but in point of fact the Commission, of course, would do their best not to commit breaches of that kind. It

would only arise in cases where a breach of contract was committed inadvertently through the Commission not knowing of the rights.
I think some such words as those of the Amendment should be inserted in the Bill, but I must say that the Amendment itself is far too wide. The only kind of breach which might arise as the Bill is drafted are breaches of obligations which run with the coal, but as the Amendment is drafted it might cover breaches of contracts of all sorts on the land, breaches connected with the working for coal, breaches of contract about selling coal; and all sorts of things. The Amendment is far too wide. To restrict it to rights merely concerned with coal and indemnify the conveying parties would be the right thing to do. I think the real point of the Amendment is desirable, and I think we must try to find some new form of words which will carry out that purpose.

4.49 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: The Secretary for Mines has said that this would probably only arise in cases where the Commission have not noticed inadvertently, what the rights are. Surely it must be made absolutely apparent when any such liabilities as these are to be taken over that the Commission must be given notice, that they can only take over liabilities where they are given notice of them under the registration. We cannot be left in a position where an owner shall not inform the Commission of a covenant and then the Commission have the responsibility for carrying out a covenant of which they have had no notice. The whole basis of this must be notice of a covenant to the Commission. Can the Secretary for Mines say that this was taken into account in arriving at the £66,000,000? It is quite fair that there should be some sort of indemnity of this kind, but the vital matter is, Was it taken into account in fixing the amount of £66,000,000? We want to be sure that it was not taken into account in arriving at that sum, and that no such obligation will be cast on the Commission except in such cases where they have had proper notice of the existence of a particular contract.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I understand that royalty owners will be compelled to register all these particulars. We have


had a famous case in South Wales where there was an agreement, not between the royalty owners and a colliery company, but between the royalty owners and the Swansea Corporation, where there was an undertaking not to work the coal under a reservoir. The case went to court and cost tens of thousands of pounds. I assume that in two or three years' time the State will own that coal, and, therefore, in the case of a dispute arising between the Merthyr Tydfil Coal Company and the Swansea Corporation it would be a dispute in which three parties—

The Chairman: I do not think the case of a third or fourth party comes under this Amendment. It deals with the first party, the royalty owners, and the second party, the Commission.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, but what the Secretary for Mines has just said rather frightens some of us. It might mean that the Commission, having taken over an obligation, might find out in two or three years' time that they had committed a breach of some agreement about which they knew nothing. Will it not be an obligation on the royalty owners to register the full details and particulars of every undertaking and agreement in connection with their property? Unless the Commission know all the particulars of an undertaking, how can they be held responsible for any breach? Will not the whole point of the Amendment be covered if registration is carried out completely?

Captain Crookshank: I think the answer to that question is that it is, but in view of what has been said in the Debate, I think we had better look into the matter again.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: The Amendment says that the Commission shall indemnify
against all actions, proceedings, costs, damages, claims, and demands on account of any breach of such covenant, agreement, or obligation.
That must surely include the possibility that actions and claims can be taken against the estate of any existing royalty owner on account of any working that has been going on for the last 25 years.

Captain Crookshank: I have already said that, as drawn, the Amendment is far too wide.

Mr. Mainwaring: But even in the modified form which the Secretary for Mines is prepared to accept, does not the Amendment mean that liabilities which rightly should fall on past royalty owners are to be handed over to the Commission?

Mr. Spens: I thought I had made the matter perfectly clear. It is not suggested that royalty owners should be relieved of any liability except liabilities of future breaches of obligations by the Commission, of which I agree they will have had notice under registration. In view of what has been said by the Secretary for Mines, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Retention of leasehold, etc., interests carrying right to work.)

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(a) where the lease was granted prior to the first day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
This is an Amendment of a fundamental character. The Clause provides that existing mining leases are not to be interfered with by the Commission. Such leases are regarded as a retained interest, which in effect means that after the Commission have taken over under the Bill they cannot override the leases and all that pertains to their working. The Government announced their intention to nationalise coal royalties in 1935, I believe on the eve of the General Election, and in my submission only leases entered into before that date should be regarded as retained interest. It means that all leases entered into subsequent to the announcement of the Government's intention should be regarded, not as retained, but as acquired.
There is a justifiable parallel for our Amendment. It is not the practice of the Government when they propose to purchase land or property to announce their intention, because the price of the land or property would rise. They proceed quietly, by secret negotiations, which are probably in the hands of other parties operating for the Government to acquire the land or property which the Government believe to be necessary. That is


done to protect the Exchequer. The intention of the Bill is to give the Commission power to acquire coal royalties and operate them in the national interest. If we permit retained interest to arise as between 1935 and the vesting date, leases of an unfavourable character and detrimental to the Commission might be entered into, leases which might render nugatory the activities and functions of the Commission. It is against that objectionable practice that we protest and have put down the Amendment.
The figure, it will be remembered, has been fixed by a tribunal. How far retained interests arising during the period between 1935 and the vesting date will affect interests within that figure it is difficult to say. But clearly it would be unfavourable to the Commission, as it would affect the compensation that would have to be paid in certain cases. Over and above that, an important principle is involved. The Government have hesitated about introducing this important Measure, and in doing so they have afforded a breathing space to royalty owners and mining undertakings, who could enter into leases favourable to themselves. If the period were to end at the date of the introduction of the Bill, perhaps no serious objection could be taken, but as the period is to be extended from 1935 to the vesting date it is unfair to the Government and particularly unfair to the Commission. For those reasons, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

5.1 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I see the point which the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) had in mind in moving the Amendment, but I am not sure whether he has realised the consequences that would follow if the Amendment were adopted. Of course, all the leases will continue to run. The Commission will not make a breach on any contract, and anybody who has a lease will go on with it. If it is said that leases entered into subsequent to a certain date shall not be retained leases, but shall be acquired, it will mean that those leases will not have been paid for. They will thus represent an additional sum that will have to be charged over and above the figure which it was agreed would be proper compensation for certain things. It would obviously be unfair to include other interests and

say that the sum must cover them as well.
The hon. Gentleman gave as a parallel the fact that when Government Departments purchase land, they do so "on the quiet," foreseeing that otherwise some rights adverse to the Government might be created, but I do not think he meant to suggest that in this case the Government ought not to have told anybody and ought suddenly to have launched the scheme without having made any public declaration of their intention or talked it over with various people interested in matters of machinery and so on. Therefore, I do not think the parallel which the hon. Member gave applies very far. He said that leases detrimental to the future work of the Commission might have been granted since the beginning of November, 1935, and may still be granted. Taking the date of November, 1935, it is true that the proposal appeared in the Government's programme at the General Election, but I do not see why we should be tied down to that date. After all, the matter was first broached as a possibility in 1919, and certainly last Summer the hon. Member was very doubtful whether such a Bill would be introduced. If he had doubts and if doubts existed in the House, it does not seem to me to be very likely that people would have been granting leases at that date which would be detrimental to the possible future work of the Commission. Moreover, the hon. Member must not overlook the effects of Clause 9, which deals with leases granted during the interim period between the valuation date and the vesting date. It is laid down in that Clause that a draft of the proposed lease must be delivered to the Commission at least two months before the date on which it is to be executed. That will operate from the valuation date. It is not probable that many leases will run out during that period—

Sir S. Cripps: It is not necessary for a lease to run out before a new one is granted. An old lease can be given up and a new one granted in its place.

Captain Crookshank: The Amendment would mean that any new leases granted in the period in question would become acquired interests, and the Commission would have to pay compensation for them. That does not seem to me to be a practical proposition. The compensation could not possibly come out of the figure


of £66,000,000, and therefore it would have to be an extra financial burden on the Commission. I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment, because it seems to me to go a great deal too far. It would mean that compensation would have to be paid for interests for which a great deal of money had already been paid. Hon. Members opposite have moved to reduce the amount that is to be paid, but in this case they are suggesting that we should add to the amount. I am afraid they are not very consistent.

5.7 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has met the point of the Amendment. Let us begin with the date with reference to which compensation moneys were assessed. They were assessed on the basis of the average yield of royalties over a period of years, assuming, of course, that the leases then existing would continue in operation; that is to say, in cases where leases ran out, the purchaser would get the benefit of being able to release the royalty on whatever terms he liked. It was on that basis that the figure of £66,000,000 was arrived at. Clearly, it is fair that the person who purchases on that basis should, when he gets the freehold, not be in a worse position than is represented by the restrictions on that freehold which existed when the figure of £66,000,000 was arrived at. The figure of £66,000,000 was arrived at, roughly speaking, prior to 1935. Therefore, it is fair and just to say that, as the sum that is to be paid has been fixed in relation to the year 1935, the conditions on which the compensation is to be paid should also be fixed with regard to the year 1935.
What might happen? It might be that in a number of cases the leases would be running out. It might be that in a number of cases there would be disadvantageous terms in those leases. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent the royalty owners from granting fresh leases on terms infinitely more favourable to the coalowners. There would be nothing to prevent that up to the time when the valuation occurred, because until the valuation date came, there would be no restriction whatever upon the royalty owners. Let us suppose that a royalty owner has a considerable interest in a mine, and says, "I would not mind foregoing my royalties during the next two

years, because in any case I shall get my whack of the £66,000,000 and the only difference it will make will be in what I receive annually during the next two years. I will fix up a long-term lease on the basis of low royalties; and as I am interested in the coal-mining company, I shall get the benefit of that new lease for the next 50 years. I will get the company to give up the old lease and fix up a new lease." There is nothing in the Act to stop that.
Between now and the valuation date, every lease in the country could be recast in favour of the owner and against the Commission. That would be an impossible position, seeing that the Commission are to pay on the basis of the leases existing in 1935. I do not suggest that this Amendment is the best machinery for stopping that sort of thing. My hon. Friends have moved the Amendment in order to raise the point at an early place in the Bill. Clearly, in the case of a Bill of this sort, no private Member can produce a draft which will be accepted by the Government, but we raise the point because it seems to us to be a real and genuine one. It is a legitimate point that must be considered by the Government. It would not be fair to leave the Commission in the position of having handed to them on the valuation date property which was completely different from that for which they had paid. What the Commission will pay for is the royalty, subject to the restriction which then existed in form. We cannot leave the position such that the royalty owners can completely change the form of property which is to be handed over to the Commission. I do not say that the date of November, 1935, is the right one; it might be more accurate to take the date on which the final instalment of the royalty under the valuation of £66,000,000 takes place; but one or other of those dates ought to be adopted.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that if the Amendment were adopted, there would have to be extra compensation. But these leases will have been paid for, and there is no reason why there should be compensation. If the leases had, in fact, been granted since on conditions which diminished the value of the freehold, and if there were compensation for that, it would mean that the Commission would be paying twice over. The Commission have the right to ask the royalty owner to hand them the property


in exactly the form in which it was valued under the figure of £66,000,000. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Government should devise a new Clause or Amendment in order to make certain that when the Commission pay the £66,000,000, they will get the property for which they are paying, which will not be the case, unless some provision of this sort is inserted.
Let me take a hypothetical case. Suppose there were a coal mine which had not been opened at the date when it was acquired at the end of 1935, but that since that time a new lease had been granted for 50 years. What the Commission would be paying for would be coal on which there was no lease and as to which they had absolutely free disposition. That would be the basis on which the £66,000,000 would be calculated. What the Commission would get would be coal granted away perhaps at a royalty of 2d. or 3d. a ton for 50 years. They could not alter the lease, and it would be a retained lease. Nobody could justify that set of circumstances unless the royalty owner is prepared to pay compensation to the Commission for not giving them that to which they are entitled. It is not a question, in the circumstances which we are suggesting, of the Commission paying for something, but it is a question, in the circumstances as they are set out in the Bill, of the royalty owner paying the Commission something—assuming that the new lease has altered for the worse. This matter is not of monetary importance only. This is a Bill to assist in the reorganisation of the industry, and presumably it is desirable that there should be as little retained interest as possible, because the shorter the retained interest the more flexible the arrangement and the greater the opportunity for the Commission to use their powers in the reorganisation of the industry.
Suppose that the Mining Association were to say, "We do not like this Bill," and got into touch with the royalty owners, and that the royalty owners said, "Before the vesting date we are prepared to grant you a complete new series of leases throughout all the coalfields for 100 years." What is to prevent them? Absolutely nothing. The Commission then, instead of having leases falling in from time to time, thus giving them the

opportunity to assist reorganisation, would be faced with a cast-iron position for the next 100 years and with a retained interest of 100 years in every coalfield. There is nothing in the Bill as it is to prevent that. I hope I have not put an evil thought into the minds of the Mining Association, but that is an obvious way of defeating this Measure. They can say, if they like, "Let the Bill go through; we have made up our minds to make it ineffective." I hope that the Secretary for Mines will see to it that something is done in order to remedy that situation.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Denman: I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has developed at this stage a point which I ventured to make in the Second Reading Debate. I do not suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman has done me the honour of reading my remarks on that occasion, but I then gave a couple of examples of what would be permitted under this Bill during the period between now and January, 1939, in regard to the making of new leases. I think the hon. and learned Member agrees that this Amendment is not appropriate to deal with the subject. Nor does it matter, I submit, that leases have been created since 1935, because those leases have all been on standard lines, and the Commission when they take them over will benefit from them. The hon. and learned Member seemed to think that the Commission would be in some way injured in regard to mines opened since 1935 and fresh leases granted for, say, 50 years. I think that in that supposition he neglects the whole principle of the global figure. The global figure is the sum to be paid as compensation for all coal measures at a given moment. There will always be some measures whose working is almost or is quite completed, and there will be cases of fresh measures having been opened, but at any given moment during the period to which the valuation applies, that figure is appropriate to the revenue that will be obtained, from one year to another, from the coal measures. So long as normal leases are being granted, that is an advantage to the Coal Commission.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member, however, that from now until 1939 there is a danger of the creation of special leases which could injure the Commission. There is the type of lease which is fore-shadowed


in a very interesting Amendment to Clause 12 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). He there suggests that a colliery owner who owns his own coal should be able to obtain a lease at a peppercorn rent. The owner thereby, of course, would forego any share of the £66,000,000. Realising that he could not get, in capital compensation, an amount adequate to repay him for the coal, he can get it in another way—by not having to pay any royalty whatever hereafter. It is suggested that that should be done by a lease from the Commissioners, but as the Bill stands now it can be done without reference to the Commission at all by leases granted by a subsidiary colliery owner to the principal colliery owner and leases taken out some time between now and January, 1939. That will mean that the Commission will be taking over a lease from which it will get no revenue, and the colliery owner will be able to take the coal free. Surely that is highly disadvantageous to the Commission.
I suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines will have to consider the position which will be created by allowing complete liberty for the creation of leases between now and January, 1939. From that time until the vesting date the Commission have adequate control, and there can be no danger then, but in the period of complete freedom I see a real danger. It is not merely a question of danger. There is some embarrassment also, because in granting leases now, it is rather difficult to know what is in the best interest of the coal-owner now and of the Commission hereafter. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners naturally want to grant leases which will be in harmony with the spirit of this Bill, but it is not easy to say what is in harmony with the spirit of the Bill or whether the Commission will like leases for 20 years or for 40 years. They will obviously like the best royalty they can get. But there are all kinds of details in these leases, and it is not plain what the interest of the owner of the coal is now and what the interest of the Commission hereafter will be. I suggest that the Government should, between now and the further stages of the Bill, devise a method by which leases made up to January, 1939, shall come under some simple supervision.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. H. Mitchell: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). He said that there was a danger of a royalty owner who was interested in a colliery company entering into a lease during the intervening period which, while involving a sacrifice of rent would bring him back profit in another direction and would be to the disadvantage, ultimately, of the Commission. There might be something in that suggestion if we were dealing only with a few royalty owners who would be able to get together and agree to act in that manner. Actually, however, there are about 5,000 royalty owners, and if one or two of them acted in that way, they would be depreciating the interests of the royalty owners. If any royalty owner acted in such a way as to reduce the fixed rent or royalty, is it not obvious that such an individual would get a smaller share of the compensation than the other royalty owners? I think it is plain that in present circumstances no royalty owner would act in such a way.

Sir S. Cripps: But surely the basis of his share of the £66,000,000 is the valuation of the coal? It is not a question of the rent which he gets. I do not imagine that a man who was getting a royalty of 1s. 6d. would necessarily get three times as much compensation as the man who was now getting a royalty of 6d. The basis is the valuation.

Mr. Mitchell: The point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised is an interesting one, but I think that the only possible way of valuing coal is on a royalty basis, and also on the basis of the fixed rent. I cannot imagine any other method on which it will be possible for the appointed valuers to proceed. All my experience of coal leases has tended to show that that is the recognised method of valuation. Therefore, while, as I say, I have followed the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument with interest, I think the risk of all the royalty owners getting together and depreciating their property uniformly is very remote. I think also it would be a pity if any Amendment were made in the Bill which would make it impossible for new leases to be entered into in the intervening period. I know of cases where leases are now in negotiation in the ordinary course for the starting up of collieries in the


Special Areas and it would be a pity if it were made impossible to enter into such leases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is that? "] In Scotland. That is a particular case which I have in mind, and I give it only as an illustration. The Minister ought to bear these considerations in mind before agreeing to any Amendment of the Clause on the lines indicated.

5.26 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I am sure the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) will agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Mitchell) has just said. What the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to guard against is not so much the granting of leases in itself, as the granting of leases on what would, in the ordinary way, be considered rather abnormal terms. We could not sterilise the whole industry for the next three or four years. The work has to go on. But what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to prevent is anything improper. I agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken that the chances of 100 per cent. of the royalty owners agreeing to do something is exceedingly remote, and I do not think we need bother about that possibility. But what hon. Members opposite fear is that some leases might be altered, for one reason or another, in a manner which would be detrimental to the Commission. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford has just said, if leases were made now on terms which provided for a very small income from the royalty, it would depreciate the amount of compensation, because I am sure that the income arising from the royalty is one of the considerations which the valuers will take into account.

Sir S. Cripps: May I point out that there are two different things involved? There is the average rent which a property, whether it be a mineral property or a house or anything else, will produce. That is certainly taken into account. But there is also the specific rent, which is not taken into account. Suppose a valuation is being made of a row of houses which are all about the same. One may be let at £40, another at £50, a third at £45, and so on. The valuer will not value the house which is let at £50, higher than the house which is let at £40,

if they are, generally speaking, houses of the same sort. The rent is merely the idiosyncrasy of the individual. The valuer will value all the houses, in relation to the average rent paid for that type of house in that type of district. In the same way, if there was a particularly low rent payable in the case of one royalty and a particularly high rent payable in the case of another, the valuer would eliminate that as a factor and take the average which was paid in the area.

Captain Crookshank: I think the answer to that point is that the rules of valuation in the case of minerals are quite different from the rules applicable to the valuation of other property, but I do not propose to argue with the hon. and learned Gentleman about a point which is really one for the professional valuer. I have been interested in this discussion, and I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having raised the subject. I cannot give any undertaking in the matter, but I shall consider it further with my right hon. Friend, in order to see how much substance there is in the point put by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It really narrows itself down to the possibility of improper leases being made during the short period up to the valuation date. I cannot go too far back, and I would would point out that the valuation date which is fixed in Clause 9 safeguards—

Sir S. Cripps: The point of time to which I suggested the hon. and gallant Gentleman should go back was the point of time at which the £66,000,000 was fixed. That is the material point of time. Leases made between that time and the valuation might alter the position of the Commission. I do not use the term "fraudulent" or any word of that kind, but leases might be altered for many reasons, collusive or otherwise, and that might materially alter the position of the Commission in respect of something for which they are to pay £66,000,000.

Captain Crookshank: As I say, in the absence of my right hon. Friend I cannot give any undertaking, except that we shall look into the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

5.33 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to leave out "not".
There are several other Amendments to Clause 5 on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend which are consequential on the Amendment I am now moving, and it will probably be convenient if I deal with them all together. As the Bill is drafted, the Committee will see that in Clause 5, Sub-section (1, b) there is a provision that an interest in coal shall be a retained interest
where the term of years created by the lease is held in reversion as aforesaid, if the interest is not one as respects which a direction is given under the nevt succeeding Subsection.
That is to say, the Commission do not take the reversionary interest under subleases unless they give a direction that they desire to do so. The effect of these Amendments is to reverse what I may call the onus and to say that the Commission shall take rights in reversion on the sub-lease, unless they give a direction that they do not want to do so. How does all this arise? If one takes the ordinary, simple case of one royalty owner and one lessee or colliery company, it is perfectly simple. The Commission gets the royalty owner's interest, and the interest of the colliery company is a retained interest which is kept by them. But suppose that there is interposed between the colliery company which is actually working the mine and the royalty owner an intermediate person. Suppose that royalty owner "A" has sub-let to "B." Supposing the rent paid by "A" is 4d. and the royalty rent paid by the colliery company "B" to "A" is 5d., it is clearly right that the Commission should get both reversionary interests. They will collect 5d. from the colliery company, because that is the effective agreement under which the coal is being worked. Suppose, however, the intermediary person, a man whom I call "A," instead of having entered into a sublease at profit to himself, entered into one at a loss to himself, then he has no landlord's interest. The royalty owner lets it to "A" at 4d. and "A" to "B" at 3d. He has no landlord's interest. He has made a bad bargain and there is no reason why Parliament should relieve him of it. Clearly the Commission must have power to disclaim

his interest because it is not a landlord's interest.
There is a further point. I have no desire to suggest that anybody will try and enter into transactions which might defeat the purposes of this Bill. There is the possibility of an existing lease with an existing colliery company under which a royalty is payable. Suppose that lease was assigned to A, who then let the right to work it to the colliery company at a peppercorn rent. If the Commission automatically take not only the royalty owner's interest but the interest of the superior lessor because it is a reversionary interest, they would only collect the peppercorn rent, but would be liable to compensate the original royalty owner. That is sufficient to make these provisions clear. All we are doing under these Amendments is to lay the onus on the Commission in regard to giving a direction in cases in which they desire to disclaim. An inquiry has shown, there are not likely to be many of these cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Further amendments made:

In page 5, line 1, leave out "either before, on or within," and insert "not later than the expiration of,"

In page 5, line 2, after "date," insert:
or, if later, from the date on which notice of the subsistence of the lease is delivered to the Commission under Section thirteen of this Act.

In page 5, line 4, leave out "acquired," and insert "retained."

In page 5, line 8, leave out "itself an under-lease," and insert:
held in reversion on an under-lease, being a coal-mining lease.

In page 5, line 8, leave out "a superior coalmining," and insert "that."

In page 5, line 11, leave out "the superior lease," and insert "that under-lease."—[The Attorney-General.]

5.42 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, to leave out Sub-section (3).
I am moving this Amendment in order to get an explanation of the object of this Sub-section. It takes out of the Clause certain types of leases in which the lesson is not the person carrying on the business of coal-mining, or at least the person who has not a substantial beneficial interest.


We do not understand what a "substantial beneficial interest" means. How is it defined, who is to decide it, and what court or tribunal is to say whether John Jones or William Smith has a substantial beneficial interest? What have the Government in mind?

5.43 p.m.

The Attorney-General: This Clause starts by excepting from the transfer to the Commission prima facie interests that arise under coal-mining leases. This Subsection is put in to prevent a possible evasion either directly under this Bill or through a state of affairs which might possibly exist apart from this Bill, but which, in our view, ought not to be treated as creating a coal-mining lease. I would ask the Committee to assume that an owner of coal entered into a long lease with trustees, possible at a nominal rent, under which they had power to work but no obligation to work the coal. That might well be held, but for this Subsection, to be a coal-mining lease, and the interest of the trustees would therefore be a retained interest. In the case I am quoting, the rent would be purely nominal, and when the coal came to be worked the trustees would get the royalty which it is intended should go as the landlord's property to the Commission. We shall be glad to have in this and the later stages of this Bill the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman or of any other Members in regard to the drafting. We believe that the words "substantial beneficial interest" will be found sufficiently precise for this purpose in that the cases will usually fall under the ordinary category where there is an ordinary coal-mining lease; and the only cases which it is necessary to provide for are the cases of the kind which I have indicated which might be brought about with a view to defeating the purposes of the Bill, or which possibly exist already under arrangements made in connection with the transfers to trustees, but in which the trustees could not be described as persons carrying on the business of coalmining.

5.46 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is not quite so innocent as he appeared to be on the last occasion. He has had experience of the evasion of Income Tax, and he is

now beginning to bring to bear the same mind upon the coalowners. I can assure him from my acquaintance with them that he will need as much caution, if not more, in dealing with them than he has to have in regard to Income Tax and Super-tax payers. This is the kind of Sub-section which has led to difficulties in the Income Tax law. It is the class of provision where an ill-defined attempt to get over some anticipated difficulty rather than to stop up the gap generally manages to give an opportunity for ingenious lawyers to find a way through the gap. While we approve of the hon. and learned Gentleman's ideas in stopping up the gap, I suggest that he should find out before the Report stage some more accurate and apt phraseology to make the stopper rather tighter in the gap than this is likely to be. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, after "section," to insert:
an agreement whereunder a person who has incurred expenditure in or in relation to operations of boring or prospecting for coal holds an option for the grant of a coal-mining lease shall be deemed to be a coal-mining lease but subject to that qualification.
I very rarely agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in his criticisms, but my Amendment raises a case similar to the one he had in mind if Sub-section (3) remains in its present form. I am taking the case of the pioneer company which spends large sums of money in boring and prospecting for coal and which proves the coal. The only interest it has in sinking the borehole in the coal is an option to take up a lease at some future time. This is not a case of a person who has merely granted a lease to trustees and left the coal unworked or anything of that sort. It is the case of a person who has spent large sums doing a useful work but who has a document which, under Sub-section (3), does not confer on him a coalmining lease because in such a case the pioneer company's usual procedure is to go no further than an option to take up a lease. It is certainly not a lease where a person carrying on the business of coalmining has a substantial beneficial interest. In fact, no business of coalmining at that stage is being carried on at all. In these circumstances it appears that such a person


is being excluded altogether from any benefit in respect of the money that has been spent in proving the coal. Although in the main definition Clause a person who has an option for a lease has a coalmining lease, this Sub-section excludes him altogether from the effect of Clause 4. Although I suggest the addition of some such words as I am moving in the Amendment, I feel that the words of this Sub-section should be reconsidered to make clear what it is intended to exclude and what it is intended to include.

5.55 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The function of the pioneering company must be well known to hon. Members who are following the Debate to-day. It is admitted that they have done in the past very useful work both in proving that there is coal here or there and negatively proving that there is not. Their procedure, I understand, is generally that before starting on this enterprise they acquire an option over the coal if any should be found. Of course, they have no altruistic motives in finding out whether coal is there. They naturally turn the discovery of coal into profit. Exploratory companies are entitled to do that. Having found coal, they generally use their option either by buying the coal freehold and then letting it to some colliery undertaking, or they have an option for a lease which they afterwards sublet to a colliery undertaking. In doing so their payment has been either in the form of a lump sum or a lump sum with an enduring small sum per ton of coal afterwards—what is wrongly described as a super-royalty because it has nothing to do with a royalty in the ordinary sense.
In the Bill, in so far as they are owners of a freehold, or in so far as they have an interest in the leasehold which they have sublet, by the words which we have already been discussing they would receive compensation. They come within the ambit of compensation. I do not think there is any doubt about that. If my hon. and learned Friend thinks there is, I will look at the point again. The case which I think is more in mind in this Amendment is where they have proved coal, but where there is no probability of it being worked for some years. The question is, where do they stand from the point of view of receiving any compensation? The Amendment seeks to say that if they have such an option as the

result of an agreement under which they have incurred expenditure in prospecting for coal they ought to be considered as having a lease. I find it very difficult to admit that, because of the mere fact that they have such an option, that they should be considered as having a lease. It would open the door very widely because it would be difficult to limit it to an agreement. Other owners of coal might come along and say that they had spent a certain amount of money boring and prospecting, and why should they not have a lease?
If there are not very many of such cases now I suspect that by the time the Bill is passed there will be a large number of people who would see the possibility of getting leases in this manner and who might be tempted to take advantage of that possibility. It would be difficult to limit it to those who held an option under an agreement and it would cut across the general object and principle of the Bill. The general object is that there should be one landlord for the coal after the coal has been vested, and to accept the Amendment would be to accept the idea that pioneer companies have done such deserving work that they should have some right to retained leases. That would cut across another principle, which is that we are acquiring the coal now at its proper market value. If their interests have any market value, they are covered by the proposed compensation. If, however, they have no present value, then to include an option of this kind would be to go against the basic principle which we have adapted hitherto. I do not think it is possible to accept the Amendment. I repeat that if the interests are of value, they are covered by the Bill, but those people are in the same position as anybody else, and if the options are not of present value, I do not see how we could possibly open this loophole without leading to considerable difficulties in other directions.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If a company have an option of this kind, though coal be found it cannot legally be worked, having regard to the other Statutes which this House has passed. For instance, they must first get a quota; the option may be purely worthless unless it is possible to get a quota.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Spens: In the submission which I put forward I was not thinking of cases


where the coal has been, if I may use the expression, tied up years ahead by means of an option. There are commonly three stages before one gets to the binding lease under which coal is worked. It is usual to start with an option granted to someone while he looks round to see whether he can get a quota and whether it will be worth while to work the coal. That may be an option for only six months or six weeks, or even for no more than a fortnight or two or three days. That option will turn into an agreement for a lease, and then, some considerable time afterwards, there comes the full-dress lease, a long document running into pages and pages, which often does not come into being until two or three years after the lessees have actually started working the coal. While this Clause provides that the man who has got the lease and the man who has got an agreement for a lease under which the coal is being worked will be entitled to retain that lease and work the coal, we are going to say to those who have only options, "No, you msut take such compensation as you can get, but under no circumstances is your right ever to blossom into a lease under which you can work the coal." I fully appreciate what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind in dealing with options generally, but I ask him to reconsider the question from the point of view that I have put, and not from the point of view, which I think is rather heavily influencing his mind, of option holders who are thinking of tying-up the coal and leaving it there for many years ahead. I am dealing with people who have options which must result in an agreement for the coal to be worked within six months or a year. The hon. and gallant Gentleman can put in any limitation. If our case is not met, I feel that there will be a certain number of people who have spent a lot of money and will get back only a small dividend by way of compensation.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I hope that the Government will consider what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) has just said. I should like to draw attention to the fact that a great deal of evidence about these pioneer boring companies was given before the Sankey Commission, and that Sir John Sankey, as he then was, said in his report, at page 14:

If and when the coal mines are acquired by the State any just claims of pioneer boring companies should be recognised.
The other members of the Sankey Commission, who included a number of members of the Labour party, agreed generally with the report and with that conclusion. This Amendment does not ask for any cash compensation for the pioneer boring companies, but is merely designed to improve the position of persons who have carried on the business of boring or prospecting for coal on the faith of an option on the grant of a lease to their nominees in the event of the existence of coal being proved. Under Sub-section (3) of this Clause as it stands they might be prevented from securing the benefit of a coalmining lease for their nominees when the occasion for the exercise of the option arose. I should like to remind the Committee that only on Thursday last my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said:
It is clear that if you want someone else to bore for you and authorise him to do it, you really can do it only on the terms that if someone else finds coal he will be allowed to work it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1937; col. 607, Vol. 330.]
I hope that the Government, bearing in mind the recommendation of the Sankey Commission, will reconsider this matter.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Denman: I want, in two or three sentences only, to support the principle of this Amendment. I recognise that it goes further than the Government are likely to go but as things stand we are compensating persons who simply possess coal but have done nothing whatever about it, while those who have explored for coal, have spent money upon trying to make the coal available, may get nothing whatever by way of compensation. I suggest that some way ought to be found of meeting the point embodied in this Amendment, perhaps by limiting it to options which were taken out before the introduction of the Bill, or to cases in which substantial expenditure was incurred before the introduction of the Bill. Whatever limitation the Government may choose to put in, I think they will agree that here is a class of extremely useful pioneers who are entitled to obtain leases on the faith of the options which have been granted.

6.4 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: May I suggest that the royalty owners should compensate the


persons who hold the options, because a royalty owner will get a better price if coal has been proved? He will get a better share of the £66,000,000 owing to the expenditure by the option-holder. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite should put down an Amendment by which the royalty owner is compelled in such cases to compensate the man who has done the useful work. That would be very fair indeed, and I think I can say that we on this side would support it. If they have ideas of justice, honesty, and honour, no doubt they will take that course.

Amendment negatived.

6.5 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, at the end, to insert:
(5) Where coal or a mine of coal in which a term of years created by a coal-mining lease is subsisting is subject to a right granted by a working facilities order the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this Section shall have effect in relation to interests in that coal or mine arising under the lease in like manner as if the term had been held in reversion as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this Section.
This is really little more than a drafting Amendment. Under Sub-section (4) of this Clause a right to work granted by an order issued by the Railway and Canal Commission is treated as a lease. In speaking of the right to work, I am not referring to ancillary rights. A right granted by the Railway and Canal Commission is the equivalent of a lease, and, that being so, the only effect of this Amendment is to make it clear that by being the equivalent of a sub-lease, in the case where there is an order to work made against an original lessee, it is treated as a sub-lease for the purpose of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) with which I was dealing a short time ago.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 30, leave out from the beginning to "and," in line 35.—[The Attorney-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In the Memorandum explaining the Bill it is stated that the properties and rights to be acquired will comprise all coal, whether now being

worked or not, and I have a point to raise about that. The Attorney-General has told us that he could conceive of a case where people had the power to work coal but were under no obligation to work it. I know a district, one in which the quota is not being fulfilled, where the following situation exists: It is explained in several letters which I have in my hand, which I shall not read in full but from which I shall give extracts. One letter explains that a man was given power to work what they call a foot rail. He went to a fair amount of expense in preparing to work the coal and got a number of unemployed men to work with him. Then there came along a new company which got into touch with those owning the land and the result was that after all his expenditure this man was not to be allowed to obtain the coal from the foot rail, despite the fact that the quota in that district was not being fulfilled. The man got into touch with the Mines Department and received a reply which stated that "at present"—that was prior to this Bill being introduced—there was no way of obtaining the grant of a compulsory right to work minerals except by means of an order made by the Railway and Canal Commission. I want to know what will be the position of these men—and there is a number of men for whom I am putting this question—when this Bill becomes an Act? According to the letter from the Mines Department, these men, who are relatively poor, will be required to go to the Railway and Canal Commission. They will have to be represented by counsel at the hearing and, in addition, have to get London agents. The men are in such circumstances that they could never go to all that expense.

6.11 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I think the hon. Gentleman's point goes a little wide of this Clause, and that it would have been more directly relevant to one of the Clauses which we have passed dealing with the general powers of the Commission. If I followed his point aright, he is dealing with the case of certain men who, after having had a right for some time, have had that right taken away owing to the appearance of a company on the scene and other arrangements being made by the coalowner. His view is that these men ought to be allowed, not only in the national interest but in their own as well, to work this coal, but


says they have been told that at present the only way of getting that right is by going to the Railway and Canal Commission. Broadly speaking, all coal will pass to the Coal Commission if this Bill passes, subject to existing leases, and it will be for the Coal Commission to make such arrangements as seem proper to them and to confer the right to work coal on those whom they may think proper. In the carrying out of that duty they must, under the terms of Clause 2, have regard to the
interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.
I cannot generalise about the particular case which the hon. Member put forward, but if the men for whom he spoke have a good case to work coal in the national interest, then, when this Bill becomes an Act, instead of having to come to court and employ London agents and counsel to submit a case against a landlord who is under no statutory obligation to have regard to the national interest or the interests of the coal-mining industry, they may apply to the Commission, which will be a body which must have regard to the national interests and the efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry. They can put their case to the Commission, and I am sure that it will be considered sympathetically.

CLAUSE 6.—(Compensation payable in respect of acquisition as a whole.)

6.14 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, to leave out "sixty-six million, four hundred and fifty," and to insert "forty-four million, three hundred."
This Amendment stands in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) as well as my own name. The purpose of the Amendment will be quite clear to the Committee; we shall not need lawyers to explain this one. Its object is to reduce the global sum to be paid as compensation to the royalty owners from £66,000,000 to £44,000,000, or to reduce the price from 15 years' purchase to 10 years' purchase. I think the Committee are well aware of the desire of the workmen's side of the

mining industry with regard to compensation for royalties. If the Government desire to pay this compensation, they should find the amount to be paid. This amount ought not to be charged upon the coal-mining industry which has borne the charge for centuries. Now that the Government are nationalising royalties this should be a national charge, because the industry has been exploited too long.
I cannot argue for the complete abolition of compensation or of the sum proposed as the purchase price, but we wish to fix the amount at something lower than was recommended even by the report of the tribunal which the Government accepted. Taking it even on that basis, it must be remembered that it is two years since, in their election manifesto, the Government said that it was their intention to nationalise royalties. That was said in 1935. I shall not discuss the delay which has taken place or the protracted negotiations between the Government and the royalty owners. Even with the distant date set down in the legislation which we are considering today, on which the coal is to be transferred to the ownership of the Commission, that point will be reached five years hence, in July, 1942. The tribunal suggested that 15 years' purchase was a reasonable price to pay for the royalties. If you calculate the date from the report of the tribunal until the vesting day, that is, nearly five years, and if 10 years' purchase was paid from 1942, the recommendation of the tribunal, would, we think, be carried out, and the royalty owners would get ther 15 years purchase.
Instead of that, the royalty owners are to take their royalties from the date in 1935 when the Government announced their intention to nationalise royalties, that is to say, seven years to 1942—not even from the time when the legislation has been introduced. Instead of the royalty owners having a 15 years' purchase, they are, in fact, having nearly 20 years' purchase. The tribunal held that they are entitled only to 15 years' purchase. The questions which the Secretary for Mines sent to the Mineowners' Federation, dealing with certain points which arose concerning the unification and nationalisation of royalties, were very much appreciated by the Federation, but they would have liked the questionnaire to have been very much fuller so as


to have enabled the opinion of the Mine-workers' Federation to be included on the question of the purchase of the royalties. I think it can be said that the Federation replied very fully. They dealt with the point that, if compensation was to be paid, it should be a national charge.
Our purpose in putting forward this Amendment is to rid the industry of that charge at the earliest possible moment. We think that 10 years is reasonable. I shall not argue that there are not royalty owners who will have a just complaint because they have purchased royalties within the last 10 or 15 years. I have no sympathy—very few people in this country have—with the big royalty owners who obtained their land by questionable means. Even the Government say that, in addition to advantages which might accrue as a result of the unification of the industry, any surplus remaining after the Commission have met charges, expenses, interest upon the money borrowed and repayment, and after setting up a reserve fund—of the amount of which we have not yet any knowledge—should be used, under Clause 21, to reduce royalties, wayleaves, dead rents, and other incidental charges upon the industry. As the Bill is framed, I see no prospect of any concession being given to the industry during the next 10 years. We shall have to wait for five years from the vesting date. After the vesting date, when the Commission will be charged with the responsibility for receiving royalties, expenses will have to be met. The Commission will have to build up the reserve fund. Knowing the Treasury and the Board of Trade, we conclude that the reserve fund will not be small, but will be substantial. After doing those things, the Commission would have the right, after consultation with the Treasury, to use the reserve fund to pay a portion of the money which had been borrowed.
We might ask whether any advantage is to come to the coal-mining industry as a result of this legislation. We are anxious to reduce the amount of the interest to two-thirds of the amount proposed in the Bill. That will reduce the amount of repayment of capital by one-third, and there would be a surplus which could be used to relieve the industry of certain of the charges, as is provided in Clause 21. There are several other points. I can speak as one who has had a rather unique

experience in connection with royalties. For two and a half years I represented a very substantial royalty owner. As the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines are aware, Greenwich Hospital is a royalty owner, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty is charged with the responsibility of administering royalties. There are many things which royalty owners will have to do, and which the Commission will have to do when it becomes a royalty owner, as the royalty owners have had to do in the past. They will require a surplus in order to deal with these matters. There is the question of the concessions to be given to royalty owners as a result of any abnormality met with in the working of the colliery. The colliery whose royalty was owned by the Greenwich Hospital had to loan to the royalty owner something like £2,000 in order to get through a difficulty, and no end of trouble was created. It was necessary that the loan should be given to the royalty owner.
When the Commission starts with the responsibility of administering these royalties and properties, they will have to meet an amount of exceptional expenditure which is being met by royalty owners at the present time. A larger surplus would mean that they would be able to get rid more quickly of this charge, and that the Commission would be very much more generous to colliery owners. I have known collieries being kept open largely as a result of concessions given by royalty owners in consequence of difficulties which had arisen. That is one of the reasons why we should reduce this charge upon the industry to the lowest possible point. We should like to rid the industry of the whole of this charge, but if we can bring it down by one-third by reducing the global sum to £44,000,000, in addition, of course, to the £10,000,000 with which it will be further charged, the industry would be rid of the unfair burden which has been levied on it for centuries. The industry, and particularly the workmen, would benefit as the result of the reduction for which we are now asking. For those reasons I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.

6.27 p.m.

Captain Harold Balfour: The speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) was a little more ingenious than some which were made on the Second


Reading. As a reason for moving his Amendment he gave his wish to rid the industry of the charge. He also associated himself with remarks made upon the Second Reading by those who wished to reduce the sum because they felt that the royalty owners had been amply compensated already. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said:
Fundamentally, we object because we say that the royalty owners have already been adequately remunerated for the royalties that they possess, and that there is no reason why they should receive further remuneration for that for which they have already been overpaid by the mine workers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1937; col. 1166, Vol. 329.]
In spite of the second point made by the hon. Member, the Amendment raises an important new principle about which the Committee and the country are entitled to hear something, that is to say whether compensation is to be paid according to the doctrine of whether owners of property are, politically considered, in justifiable ownership, or not. We come to the point that the Opposition have now agreed that the nationalisation of property and compensation are to be based upon political considerations, and that the longer someone has owned property, and because the royalty owners have enjoyed the benefits of the income from their property for a long time, they should have less compensation. It seems most amazing that there should be a political motive in reducing the compensation to be paid.
Hitherto, the principle of the Opposition in compensation matters has been fair compensation for owners. That has been the declared policy of the Labour party. Now we have the situation in which the Opposition are moving an Amendment to reduce compensation which has been arrived at by arbitration, whereas they themselves have put forward in literature published by the Labour Publications Department and dealing with nationalisation:
The Labour party does not believe in confiscation. … The basis will be existing profits plus reasonable expectations. The amount will be determined by agreement if possible, and in the absence of agreement, by arbitration.
That is the pamphlet of the Labour party, written by one of its members. But that is just what the Government

have done; they have put forward proposals, the two parties did not agree, and, therefore, there was arbitration. I see that in the foreword to the pamphlet it is stated:
That will be one of the first tasks of the future Labour Government. Indeed, its Bill to achieve these great ends is already drafted and has our full approval.
Now we have a Bill which carries out the principle that, if agreement cannot be arrived at, there must be arbitration, and the Labour party come down here and move a reduction of an amount which has been arrived at by arbitration. I think the country is entitled to ask whether there is really anything behind the promise of the Labour party that as regards compensation there shall be arbitration if agreement cannot be arrived at, or whether political considerations are to be involved in all future questions of compensation in connection with the nationalisation policy of the Labour party. Are the owners of houses, because they have owned their property for a long time, or because they happen to own big houses, or are the owners of land, because landowners are politically disapproved of, to get less compensation? The hon. Member for Aberdare said that he would let the little ones off—

Mr. Hall: I said that one has a certain amount of sympathy with small royalty owners who have only been in possession of their royalties for a few years.

Captain Balfour: Then I understand the hon. Gentleman's view to be that somebody who owns only a small property has a right to his property, but that anyone who has owned his property for many years has no title to his property whatever, and that anyone who owns property from which he has been deriving income in the past is to have less compensation because he has been the owner of the property for a long time.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Does the hon. and gallant Member consider it right that the royalty owner should receive, in addition to past royalties, a price equal to 15 years' purchase?

Captain Balfour: I am arguing about the principle of arbitration, the principle which the Labour party have advocated and for the application of which they have a Bill drafted, but from which they


are now endeavouring to run away by putting forward an Amendment to reduce the amount arrived at by arbitration. We have had an amazing statement from them. In the first place they say that political considerations will govern compensation under a Labour Government; secondly, they say that, the longer someone has enjoyed the benefit of his property, the less he is entitled to compensation in respect of that property; and, thirdly, there is the contradiction, which has not yet been explained to us, that the Labour party's pamphlet says that in the absence of agreement there must be arbitration, whereas, when in this Bill a sum is stated which has been arrived at by arbitration—never mind what the sum is—they come here and say that it is too big. These are amazing inconsistencies which we shall endeavour to remember with regard to the Labour party's policy of nationalisation with fair compensation when we look back on this Debate, in which, when a proposal for fair compensation is put forward by the means they propose, they have run away from their own political principles.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Batey: The last speaker has enjoyed himself by making great play with the Labour party's inconsistencies. He says that we are opposed to confiscation, but some of us, if we had our way, would make the royalty owners pay some back money. We have already this year introduced into the House of Commons a Bill which proposes that the compensation shall be two years' purchase. Although I should have liked to propose that the whole £66,000,000 should be taken, I support this Amendment as a small step, because, if we could reduce this figure of £66,000,000 by £20,000,000, we might put that £20,000,000 to a far better purpose than giving it to the royalty owners.

Captain Balfour: The non. Member says that the Labour party have introduced a Bill proposing two years' purchase. What, then, did they mean by putting forward the principle that in the absence of agreement there should be arbitration? They cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Batey: That is simply a situation that might arise. We believe that £66,000,000 is far too much to give to the

royalty owners. We believe that we are entitled to take £20,000,000, and that that £20,000,000 might well be used as the nucleus of a pension fund for miners. That would be putting it to a far better purpose than giving it to the royalty owners. I admit that the nationalisation of royalties was foreshadowed by the Sankey Commission, but since that time there has been paid to the royalty owners no less than £90,000,000, and in my opinion, when they have had £90,000,000 since we first proposed nationalisation of the royalties, they have had as much as they should have.
I want now to direct some remarks to the representative of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and I am glad to see the hon. Member in his place. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners take nearly half the royalty rents and wayleaves in Durham. The amount paid in royalty rents and wayleaves last year was £726,000, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners took no less than £261,000. During the last 10 years the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have taken, for royalty rents and wayleaves in Durham, no less than £2,828,400. If they have not been sufficiently paid, I do not know who has. I wanted to find, from the annual report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, where these amounts have been drawn from, but they are smart enough not to give too much information. They avoid giving too much information in their annual reports. In their Mineral Depreciation Fund they showed a balance, on 1st November, 1935, of £2,240,000, and the balance on 31st October, 1936, was £2,321,000. When they have as much money as that in their funds, they should in my opinion leave the miners alone; they should not expect the miners to continue to be levied for them when they have so much money as that. I would ask the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), when he comes to reply for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to tell us why the miners should pay a single penny to the Ecclesiastical Commission when in the county of Durham there is not one miner in 1,000 who attends the Church of England.

The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): I must point out to the hon. Member that this is not an Amendment to abolish the compensation, but to reduce it.

Mr. Batey: I would take as much as ever I could get, and I am voting for this reduction because I cannot get more. I want it to take place so that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall get as little as ever possible. I argue that the Commissioners are collecting this money for the Church of England, as the agents for the Church of England, from everybody, but not one miner in 1,000 ever attends the Church of England. To the miners in Durham, the Church of England is an alien Church, the Church of the aristocracy. They scarcely ever enter it except to get married.
The Commissioners have taken more than £2,000,000 from the miners. Will the hon. Member tell us what they have given to the miners in return? We have gone through some bad times in the County of Durham, but we have had no help from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or from the Church of England either. We have had to go through those bad times, but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have never paid a single penny towards local rates. While the Commissioners have been taking this money, our people have had to depend upon the local rates to help them through bad times. Neither have the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, though they have at their disposal a fund of over £2,000,000, ever given a single penny to brighten our colliery villages. I object to giving to the Ecclesiastical Commission, who are one of the largest royalty owners in the country, and who take nearly half the royalty rents of Durham, the full amount of £66,000,000 laid down in the Bill, and I would reduce that amount as much as I possibly can.
The Ecclesiastical Commissioners take these royalties from our miners in Durham, who have been receiving very low wages. During the year 1932, when all miners' wages were very low, and when the average wage of miners in Durham was only £1 17s. 11d. per week, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ran away with over £300,000 in royalty rents. That was at a time when our men were braving dangers and working hard and only drawing £1 17s. 11d. per week. Recently I went to one of my own towns, which is in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I refer to South Shields. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will excuse my mentioning it. I lived for many years

in that town, and I know that the Ecclesiastical Commission owns almost all the land in the town. The town is really in pawn to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. They are taking enormous amounts in ground rents, and the slums that they are allowing to exist—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss the general administration of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on this Amendment, though the hon. Member is entitled to say that, as royalty owners, they may be receiving too much.

Mr. Batey: Yes, I quite agree. I am not going to complain, Captain Bourne, because I know we are dealing with royalty rents and wayleaves; but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to my mind, have done very badly in the County of Durham. Only this morning I was talking to one or two gentlemen, and one said, not knowing that I was thinking of mentioning the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the Debate to-day, that "the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have a beastly record." He was quite correct. It makes some of us feel strongly, because we have seen our folk suffering from low wages, and the Commissioners have been taking from them 6d. per ton of coal. I have worked in the pits at South Shields and after a hard day's work have been paid 5s. for braving the dangers of the pit, and the royalty owners perhaps have pocketed 2s. for my work that day. They did nothing so far as the coal was concerned, and it is a scandal to think that for all these years royalty owners, like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, could have gone on taking the rents when men were working for low wages. So one naturally is led away to the question of ground rents.
I was saying that it seemed to me on coming out of the station at South Shields that the Japanese had been there dropping bombs. The Labour party have a majority on the town council at last, and they are sweeping the slums away. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, considering the money they have got from ground rents in South Shields, might have done it years ago.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go into the general administration of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the Amendment.

Mr. Batey: This has to be paid for out of the local rates. In my opinion, we are entitled to take from the royalty owners every penny we can. I would take this amount provided for here, because I cannot get any more. If I could take more, I would, and I believe that in doing so I would be doing my duty to the working people of Durham.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I just rise to draw the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary contrast between the two speeches which we have had on his Amendment from the Opposition benches. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) made it perfectly plain that if he had his way, he would not give one penny of compensation. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) seemed more conscious of the political pitfalls of having an arbitration between the claims of the willing buyer and the willing seller, and then setting it on one side by reducing the sum by one-third. I must say that I thought his argument extremely thin. It was ingenious in one respect, because it was founded on time. His argument was that the Greene Tribunal had assessed the value of royalties at £66,000,000, and, as the owners were bound to enjoy the royalties for a further 4½ years, they were, in fact, getting 19½ years' purchase. That is obviously a complete fallacy. If the State was in a position to hand over £66,000,000 to the royalty owners now, they would be perfectly prepared to drop their claim to royalties for the next 4½ years, but it is obvious that you cannot leave them without either their royalties or the interest on the money which they would have drawn for the next 4½ years.
I do not see how this Committee can go back on the verdict of an independent tribunal, of absolutely unimpeachable integrity, which arrived at its decision after very careful consideration of the case put forward from both sides. In particular, I am unable to see how the party opposite can go back upon their past in this matter. The hon. Member for Spennymoor referred to a Bill which he introduced in this House on 12th February of this year—only eight or nine months ago. The hon. Member for Spennymoor obviously was not feeling quite himself on the day that he introduced that Bill—he had had some slight personal difficulty. I will not remind the House of that. I

think that, possibly, as a result of his difficulty, he did not thoroughly read the Bill which he was laying before the House. If he had read Clause 9 of the Bill, which was to acquire not only the mines but the minerals as well, he would have seen that it provided:
The compensation payable to the owners of any mines or minerals vested in the Corporation by virtue of this Act shall be the fair value thereof on the appointed day.
In Clause 9 you will find the following words:
In the assessment of fair value any consideration of monopoly value or advantage or any similar consideration shall be wholly excluded and subject thereto fair value shall be taken to be the sum for which a willing seller would have been willing to sell and a willing buyer willing to buy.
On the back of the Bill we find the names of the hon. Members for respectively Aberdare, Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), Neath (Sir W. Jenkins), Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards), Durham (Mr. Ritson), Leigh (Mr. Tinker), and Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith), so that there are nine Members of the party opposite who are actually committed by signatures on the back of a Bill to the principle of fair valuation for minerals after an impartial tribunal has reached a decision, and no fewer than 125 Members of the party opposite went into the Lobby in support of the proposal. What has happened since to make them go back on the proposal? The country will be interested to know that when they come into power there will be an independent valuation of anybody's property which they propose to take, and that then a percentage—it may be 33⅓, 50, or 66⅔—will be taken off the amount of the valuation. I am surprised that the hon. Members for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) and Aberdare put their names to a proposal of this kind, because there are not two more generous or open-fisted Members of this House, and I should like to compare their attitude with that of some of their fellows on the benches opposite.
The Bill for the nationalisation of minerals introduced by the Labour party on 12th February provided also for the nationalisation of wayleaves and surface servitudes. That only proposed to give two years' purchase for those rights. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Members for Stirling (Mr. Westwood), North East


Derbyshire (Mr. Lee), and Consett (Mr. David Adams), proposing 10 years' purchase for those rights at the present time. Those hon. Members are moving in the right direction. They have come from two years' purchase to 10 years' purchase, and I dare say that by the time we reach the Report stage they will be for giving 20 or 25 years' purchase. But the hon. Members for Ince and Aberdare and others who backed this Bill last February are moving in the wrong direction, a direction which, I am afraid, will bring the party opposite at the next election to an even worse position than it occupies in Parliament at the present time.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I was interested in the reference of the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) to myself and other hon. Members as the end of his speech. As his colliery interest happens to be close to my constituency, any time that he is prepared to discuss this matter there I shall be pleased to meet him. I was not in the country when the Bill to which he referred was introduced last February, but I am glad my hon. Friends thought of putting my name upon it. I was, I think, in New Zealand, and I learned there how they dealt with minerals. The hon. Member said there was some inconsistency in the speeches of the hon. Members for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). If that be so, I can only say that there is plenty of room for difference on the question of mining royalties. I do not mind telling the Committee what the differences have been in regard to royalties, both in the Labour party and the Mine-workers' Federation. It is not true to say that the first time this subject was mentioned was before the Sankey Commission, because in pre-war days tribunals were sitting, considering it. There were men at that time, not Socialists, who advocated that a fair purchase would be 10 years. We know that in this country the law regarding property has been more strongly enforced than the law regarding human welfare.
We went through the War for four years. When the War was over, and the politicians were asked to translate into effect the slogans which they had put before the electors, the Sankey Commission was appointed in 1919, and hon.

Members know that every newspaper in the country pointed out how much money certain landowners had drawn from the private ownership of minerals. The Miners' Federation took up the attitude that they would differentiate; those who legitimately bought their land within a certain period should be treated differently from those who inherited it. I do not mind saying that I would give less to those who inherited royalties than I would to those who purchased them in the open market. I said on the Second Reading that, as I do not believe in confiscation, I would make that differentiation, and the point of this Amendment is as to whether £66,450,000 is a fair figure at which the Commission should take over the royalties.
I should like to get the support of this matter of one or two hon. Members on the Government benches. I see the Minister of Labour, who used to be a member of the Liberal party. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was also a member of the Liberal party, and I believe the present Minister for War was. Before the formation of the National Government they sat on these benches advocating the merits of "Coal and Power." The Liberal party then divided coal royalties into three categories—those which are being worked, those that were known and had been proved, and those that were unknown. They said in "Coal and Power," "We will pay £70,000,000 for royalties"—£4,000,000 more than this Bill says. But they also said that the royalty owners had so flagrantly disregarded the welfare of the miners who earned them the royalties that we will take £10,000,000 of that £70,000,000 and hand it over to the Miners' Welfare Fund for improving the social condition of the mineworkers. I hope that the Liberalism of the Minister of Labour, who now supports the National Government, will come up to that standard, and that he will now show a little consistency.
The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) talked about honour. Much as I respect him, I am bound to tell him this. Do not let the spokesman of the mineowners get up and talk about honour when speaking of the findings of a commission; the shelves of Government Departments are full of reports since the War which have been ignored. And, talking about compensation, does the hon.


Gentleman remember the Holman Gregory report, the result of an inquiry made after the War, which said that workmen's compensation should be increased. But did the Government increase it? Of course they did not. When we are talking about 10 or 15 years' purchase of minerals, what does this House lay down as the purchase price of a man who gets killed at work? In 1897, for the first time in the history of this country, we had a Workmen's Compensation Bill, in which Parliament said that when a man was killed, three years' purchase of his earnings should be paid, with £300 as the maximum. Substantially that is the law to-day, though since 1923 a little has been added for dependents. When hon. Members opposite talk about consistency, I hope they will have some regard to their own record before charging others.
I want this Amendment carried, and the figure of £66,450,000 reduced by one-third, because I want to see some portion of that surplus used for benefiting the people in the mining industry. I would like to see a pensions scheme—and I know the hon. Member who spoke last agrees with me on this point—for those who are no longer wanted by the mining industry, so that they can spend at least the closing years of their lives without being threatened by the finger of the investigating officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will not pursue this subject too far, as there is an Amendment to Clause 21 which raises that point directly.

Mr. Smith: I am sorry. I did not wish to get away from the Amendment. The Amendment says that £66,450,000 is too high a figure, and we seek to reduce it by one-third. We do so because we believe that that figure, together with the money that they will get between now and the vesting date, is more than they are entitled to, and I was trying to point out that the figure should be reduced because a larger surplus would then be left in the industry, which could be devoted to improving the condition of the mineworkers.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I listened, as we always do on this side of the House, with great interest to what the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) had to say. He

referred to the Bill which my hon Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) moved in this House some time ago. I may say, in passing, that we welcome the re-emergence of the authentic voice of nonconformity in this House. The hon. Member for North Leeds has charged us with seeking to go behind the award of the Greene tribunal. That tribunal was asked to fix the value of the royalties in 1936. First of all, there was an agreement that the annual value of these royalties was so much—£4,000,000 odd—and they were asked to decide what should be the figure by which that sum should be multiplied to arrive at the global sum, and they decided that the figure should be multiplied by 15.

Captain Crookshank: It was this year, not last year.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry—1937. Then may I ask this question? Were the Greene tribunal told that in fixing that sum the State would not own the royalties until 1942?

The Deputy-Chairman: It would not be proper to go into that at this moment, because immediately following this Amendment is one that says that the amount paid in the intermediate period should be deducted from the aggregate amount. I am not quite certain whether it would be convenient for the Committee if we took those Amendments simultaneously. It seems difficult to keep the two points separate.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): On that point I noticed that several Members who have spoken on this Amendment have almost inevitably trespassed on the ground covered by the next, and I think perhaps the Committee might well feel it would be convenient if we discussed them both together, and then possibly took a Division on both.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am in the hands of the Committee if the Committee wish to discuss the two Amendments together.

Mr. Griffiths: I will discuss the two separately. I referred to this point only because the hon. Member for North Leeds specifically charged us with a breach of honour—that we were trying to undercut the sum already agreed upon by the Greene tribunal. But since the matter is


to be dealt with specifically on the next Amendment, I will leave that. I will say this, which is certainly relevant to the present Amendment. I have heard it mentioned in mining circles that there is a very interesting history of what took place before this question went to the Greene tribunal. There were negotiations, and we believe that certain sums were offered. I do not think it is a secret that the royalty owners were disappointed even by the sum awarded by the Greene tribunal, and it is whispered that the Government offered the royalty owners a sum which is more than the Greene tribunal awarded. We believe that if you add the amount received in royalties between the valuation date and the vesting date it will equal the extra amount that the Government offered them, and which the royalty owners are now very sorry that they turned down.

Mr. Stanley: I should like to take the opportunity of contradicting that.

Mr. Griffiths: Our interest in this matter is primarily the interest of the industry and the men. We have no special brief for the royalty owners, though we have always regarded them as the worst, but not the only, parasites on the mining industry. If this Bill passes, what is there for our men? Is there anything? What we say is that if the sum is to remain at £66,450,000, and if there is to be added to that for the Commission's expenses at least £10,000,000—and from all the indications the sum will be greater than that—and the total will thus amount to between £76,000,000 and £80,000,000, then that will be a burden upon the industry. We are afraid of the danger that in the end the actual burden of royalties on the industry may be even more than it is now. We are, therefore, perfectly entitled to move Amendments that will aid us in our primary task of trying to get at least some consolation and some help for the men in the industry out of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds speaks here as a coal-owner. I do not know whether he has been speaking as a coalowner or royalty owner to-night, or as both. How much does he think the mining industry in Yorkshire is to get if the price paid for royalties is £66,450,000, plus £10,000,000 for the Commission's expenses? What relief does he expect the industry will get?

Mr. Peake: I do not expect to get relief under this Bill for a great many years, but I do expect to get the convenience which the colliery proprietors will have from working their coal to the best advantage, that is, of working it in whatever parts of their pits they please.

Mr. Griffiths: That is the frankest admission we have had in this House that there may be something for the owners in this Bill, but that there will be nothing for the men for many years to come.

Mr. Peake: Quite obviously if we work the coal more economically and more advantageously, the miners will participate in the benefit therefrom.

Mr. Griffiths: That may be so, but my hon. Friend will agree that that is not true of all the coal-mining districts, and that it does not leave much for the men in South Wales. We press this Amendment sincerely, because here is a sum of £66,000,000 being awarded to the royalty owners who for generations have had more than they deserve. In 1919 the Sankey Commission went into the problem of mining royalties and the Miners' Federation, the owners and the consumers were represented on that Commission as well as employers and workmen in other industries. There was one thing upon which that Commission were agreed, and that was the proposal to nationalise royalties. In those days they had not learned the new vocabulary of the National Government, and even Conservatives did not speak about unification, but nationalisation. The proposal was unanimously agreed upon and the report was signed by the President and the Vice-President of the Mining Association, the two most representative coalowners in the country, urging that the royalties should be purchased for the nation at a 15 years' purchase. If at that time the Sankey Commission and the President of the Mining Association thought that 15 years' purchase was a fair purchase price for royalties, surely we deserve the support of hon. Members in endeavouring to cut it down to 10 years' purchase. We press the Amendment because we wish to relieve the industry of some of its burden, so that the money might be used, as we would like to see it used, as one collective sum for the advantage of the men by means of pensions or in some other way. We could certainly find many ways in which to use it for the benefit of our people.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Denman: The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) was good enough in his speech to devote a considerable amount of time to a body whose representative I am in this House, and he will perhaps expect me to make a brief answer to his remarks. I do not complain in the very least. But for the genial and kindly nature of the hon. Member, it might have been thought a bitter speech. I know that, in fact, it represents a very real and widely-held point of view, and he has a right to express it in the House, where we can all hear it and can answer it. There are two quite separate points. His attack really is upon the principle of property, and about that I will say something in a moment. I do not think that, admitting the principle and practice of property as it is established by law in this country, he would assert that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are bad property owners. [Interruption.] If so, he does them a complete wrong. I have had a better opportunity than he has had of seeing that Commission at work.

Mr. Ede: When were you last in South Shields?

Mr. Denman: Not for a long time. By comparison with property owners in general, the Ecclesiastical Commission have a very high standard. I believe that any Durham Member who knows the facts will admit that, in Durham, we do take a part in local economy with other property owners. In fact, we take rather a larger part than many. I feel bound after this attack to mention something which I would not have mentioned otherwise, because if I do not do it, it may be said that we did this as a result of the Debate. A couple of weeks ago we decided to give a house and £1,000 to be used for the benefit of aged miners. It is not every property owner that would do that. We recognised that it was a duty as well as a pleasure.
On the general question of property, I am surprised that, in the argument that you ought to take over this coal for national purposes without any compensation, the Labour party should so go back upon their own principle, that fair compensation should be paid. I do not think that anybody can doubt that the figure fixed by the tribunal is fixed by a method as fair as can be attained. The

terms of reference, and the tribunal were agreed upon, and, although the sum awarded was a considerable disappointment to the owners of the coal, nevertheless, they felt bound to accept it. What seems to me to be odd in this Debate is the assumption that coal is a particular form of property that demands different treatment from other forms of property. I think that that is partly due to the fact that people will talk and think of royalties instead of coal. What is happening under the Bill is that the coal royalties of the country are being transferred from private ownership to a Commission.
Coal is an extremely valuable property; one of the most valuable blocks of property in the country. What has been happening up till now is, that the owners of this particular form of property have been selling it at what was the market value. It has been the selling of actual property, and when that process is stopped and the State takes over the property, on all ancient Labour principles, especially the principle as expounded by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), whom I see on the Front Bench opposite, fair compensation should be paid. It has been objected that this is unduly large because of the time lag between the date of the award and the time of payment. The reason for that is because of the very peculiar method by which this valuation—

The Deputy-Chairman: This is the point at which I stopped the hon. Member who preceded him, and asked the Committee whether they would like to discuss this Amendment and the next Amendment together, and the Committee decided that they did not wish to do so.

Mr. Denman: I misunderstood the Committee, and I apologise, Captain Bourne. I cannot refer to that matter now, and I will conclude by saying that this figure has been arrived at by a method upon which the Labour party could not themselves have improved. I am sorry to see that collectively they are going back on that and are approaching the vices that involve confiscation.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) mentioned my name in reference to a Bill which I seconded, and spoke about my inconsistency in supporting this Amendment.


I shall try to justify my consistency by saying that I am agreed that there should be compensation on a fair basis. I have always held that point of view in Labour party conferences. I have never agreed to confiscation. Owners of property should have payment, but the question always arises as to what is a fair payment. I wish to justify the point of view of this Amendment. It is estimated that the royalty cost is round about 6d. per ton, perhaps slightly more than that. The average daily output of a person employed in a mine is 24 cwts., so that we may assume that every mine worker pays 6d. per day to the royalty owners. Over a period of 12 months, assuming that there are 240 working days, each miner pays £6 per year to the royalty owners, and at the end of 10 years it amounts to £60. Can anybody, after analysing the work which the miner performs as against what the royalty owner does, justify the keeping-on of that burden for an additional five years, adding another £30 to the £60 before getting clear of the royalty?
We on these benches are agreed that this sort of thing ought to cease, that the State ought to take over the royalties, and that, while this is being done, some portion of this money should go to the mine workers. The mine workers are entitled to a share in the division of this money when the time comes. The Tribunal was set up, but the Government reserved the right to accept their findings or not. The Government were afraid at that time that the Tribunal might exceed the offer of £75,000,000 which they made. I am under the impression that the first offer of the Government was £75,000,000, as against £150,000,000 for which the coalowners asked and that the coalowners would not accept it.

Mr. Denman: The Government have already denied that there was any offer. I have made considerable inquiries and have not been able to trace the fact that there was any offer whatever. It was always denied that the Government offered any figure at all.

Mr. Tinker: Reports get out, and the hon. Member, when he replies, may be able, to confirm it or otherwise, but the impression abroad is that the coalowners asked for £150,000,000, and that the offer was made was £75,000,000, which

they refused to accept. The Government set up the tribunal on the distinct understanding that the coalowners would accept the findings, but the Government reserved the right to say whether they would agree to them or not. Therefore, we on these benches are not departing from what we claim to be fair when we offer 10 years' purchase, after the long period that has elapsed since the day when this matter ought to have been settled many years ago. If it had been settled in 1919, we should not have been called upon in 1937 to pay compensation based on another 15 years' purchase. I was consistent, in seconding the Bill last February, in suggesting that compensation should be on the basis of 10 years' purchase. I want the miner to get some benefit. I do not think that it ought to be called upon for another 15 years to pay £6 a year royalty on the coal that he gets. Ten years is long enough.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Maitland: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), because he states his case with great moderation and fairness. The Committee was impressed by the recital of his case, and I propose to follow the argument as he advanced it. He suggested that each mine worker was responsible for paying the royalty owner £6 per annum. That is only right up to a point. The mine worker does not pay that amount to the royalty owner. The mine worker receives his wages from the colliery proprietor, and the 6d. per ton royalty which is eventually paid is paid not by the mine worker but by the consumer of the coal. On a matter of this kind it is not only easy but attractive to say, "This £66,000,000 is a very big sum; let us see whether we can take something off and devote it to some more humane purpose." That is an argument to which we can all subscribe, but in view of the fact that in the country there is general recognition of the principle that if the State takes over any property, it must pay proper compensation for it, the Committee ought to confine itself to the one question. Is the sum named in the Bill the right figure: is it too high, or is it too low?
The hon. Member for Leigh referred to the negotiations and the subsequent setting-up of the Commission of inquiry,


and I was impressed by his moderate statement; but I could not follow his deduction, because he said that the Government, having set up the Commission, stated specifically that whatever the award might be, the royalty owners would be bound by it but the Government reserved their rights. Surely, that cannot be said to be any arrangement in favour of the royalty owners. It left the Government in the final position, after inquiries and investigation had taken place, to take their own line and to decide whether or not the price was fair. I do not know the exact details of any prior negotiations that took place, but it would not influence me in the slightest if it was to be found that either this Government or any other Government had offered £80,000,000, £90,000,000, or £100,000,000. The point is whether the price fixed is right from the point of view of the State and the point of view of a willing buyer and a willing seller.
The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), with great eloquence, said that he would not give one penny to the royalty owners, because he stated that in the course of a very few years something like £90,000,000 had been paid to the royalty owners. A statement like that creates different impressions on different minds. The impression that it created on my mind was that if in a few years the royalty owners have received £90,000,000, then the State is making a very good bargain in buying this asset for £66,000,000. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something about the negotiations that took place. He might tell us that the tribunal was an independent one, composed of men of great integrity, that they were requested by the Government to go into all relevant matters and state what, in their judgment, was a fair sum, and whether that sum is the sum mentioned in the Bill. If that be so and the Government, after taking advice, have decided that it is a reasonable figure, then, although it may be nice to say, "Let us devote some of this money to other purposes," I maintain that we should keep to the point whether the sum in question is fair, rather than raising wider issues. Having regard to the fact that the royalties paid are not paid by the miner but by the consuming public, the point for us to decide is whether the consumer is getting a fair deal. As far

as I can see, the Government have made a very good bargain for the State.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: When the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) says that the consumer has to pay the royalty, one might be led to think that the consumer had no relation whatever to the producer. If the consumer pays anything, he only pays it out of what he earns as a producer. I am interested in this matter from an entirely different angle from that raised by the hon. Member. He said that the figure was one as between a willing seller and a willing buyer. I have yet to see any enthusiasm on the part of the royalty owners as willing sellers. As far as I can see, they have put up a stubborn resistance to the coal royalties being bought from them, and they are still maintaining their resistance in this House. There is not, therefore, the relationship of the willing buyer and the willing seller. It is no use the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) arguing this matter on the basis of the rights of property. If he was arguing it on that basis, then, speaking of the matter as an abstract principle of property rights, there is no owner of property who would be willing for the State to take over his property on a 15 years' basis. On a strictly business basis, if coal were the same form of property as other property, no one in this House would willingly sell out on a 15 years' purchase basis.
How was the period of 15 years arrived at? I know of no abstract principle to justify it. It might have been 20 years, 10 years, or five years. The 15 years is a purely arbitrary figure. You are not compensating the royalty owner because he is the owner of property per se and, therefore, is entitled to compensation on that basis. This is not a payment of £66,000,000 for the buying-out of property rights. It is a peace price for the owner. It is an ex gratia payment. It is the amount that you think you can get away with. You think that if you paid the royalty owner less, his political resistance would be too strong to be overcome, and that if you paid him more, the conscience of the country would be outraged. It is no use hon. Members opposite arguing that in justifying this payment of £66,000,000 they are defending it because there are sacrosanct property


rights that have to be bought. They cannot justify the basis of payment.
The Greene Committee considered the matter, but what did they do? As far as I can see, they brought the minimum of judicial and the maximum of political wisdom into their consideration. I can find no basis for the 15 years. I have searched for it, and I have asked hon. Members for it. I am not supporting the Amendment because many years have elapsed since we declared in 1919–20 at the time of the Sankey Commission royalty owners ought to be wiped out. The reason why I am supporting the Amendment is that I believe that the Government have over-assessed the political resistance of the royalty owners, and I think it has been discovered that the royalty owners have fewer friends in the Government than they have thought. I think they are paying the bandit too much. Hon. Members on the other side have never put up any real claim for the royalty owner. The most daring has been the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), but even he has not furnished the Committee with any criteria upon which the figure has been based.

Mr. Denman: I support the methods of the tribunal, properly appointed, with agreed terms of reference.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member said that the rights in coal are like other property rights. If, therefore, 15 years' purchase is reasonable for coal royalties, that period must be equally reasonable for other property. Is it, therefore, a political plank in the hon. Member's platform in future that whenever the State takes over other property, it should be taken over on a 15 years' purchase basis?

Mr. Denman: Not in the least. The principle of the years of purchase would naturally vary with different forms of property. It is the method that I approve, not the figure.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member does not approve the figure on the abstract grounds of compensation for property? In what way is property in coal different from property in land or other forms of property?

Mr. Markham: It is a wasting asset.

Mr. Bevan: The fact that it is a wasting asset of considerable value has been

proved by the royalties that have been paid on it. What I want to get from the hon. Member—he has not answered me yet—is, in what way property in coal differs from property in land or anything else. He has defended this on the ground that it is proper compensation for property in coal; therefore, the same basis is equitable for other forms of property. We are interested in this matter; we are somewhat curious. We want to know from the hon. Member or the President of the Board of Trade whether this is the estimate of the National Government of the value of property to those who own it. If so, I would like to know in what respect property in coal differs from other forms of property that it should be treated less preferentially. Perhaps we shall get an answer to that question. I might have made a considerable sum of money in some industry and invested it in the purchase of coal or land. I have converted one form of property into another, and it is the convertibility of property on which I understand the royalty owners are basing their argument that a claim in coal royalties is the same as a claim in other forms of property.
We have only one of two issues before us. One is that we are buying out a form of property which has equal rights with other forms of property, and on the basis of that argument we are now informed that the estimate of the claims of property is a capitalisation of 15 years.

Mr. Denman: No, we deny that every time you mention it.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member may deny it, but he has not yet met the argument. Is it 15 years' purchase, or 20 or 25 years' purchase? What is the fair figure? The fact is that it is the other consideration which has influenced hon. Members opposite in supporting a 15 years' purchase, and that is that, in their judgment, coal is indefensible as a form of private property. They know in their minds and hearts that they cannot defend private property in coal, and, therefore, they have not treated property in coal as they would other forms of property. There is, therefore, nothing sacrosanct about the £66,000,000. It is a purely arbitrary figure, and based on the Greene Committee's estimate of what it will cost to overcome the political resistance of the royalty owners to the Measure. Really the House of Commons is being held to


ransom. They say, "Give us this £66,000,000, or we smash the Bill." It is a ransom payment. Therefore, we are entitled to say that if the royalty owners can extract £66,000,000 from the State for a form of property which they ought never to hold, according to the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House, we are perfectly entitled to say that we are going to put up the maximum resistance to this £66,000,000 and say that they could be ransomed for less. That is one of the grounds on which we rest our case. There is no defender in the Committee or in the country for private property in coal; it is an offence against the public conscience.
All that we have here is a payment for a property right which most hon. Members regard as indefensible. Why pay £66,000,000? Our resistance to the proposal can be overcome if the Government reduce it by one-third. And if you added an additional £22,000,000 to the funds of the Commission, we could at a subsequent stage of the Bill suggest to the Government uses to which that sum could be applied for the well-being of the community engaged in the coal industry, who have a far better title to the money than the royalty owners themselves. It seems to me that the defenders of the coal owners have overstated their case in this Bill, and have deprived themselves of any rational grounds for paying the royalty owners any compensation at all. I hope we shall demand that the Coal Commission shall have this additional sum at their disposal to use for the welfare of the persons engaged in the coal industry.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. H. Mitchell: What hon. Members opposite propose by their Amendment is, in fact, to reduce the amount of compensation to be paid by one-third. I have not heard a single argument to justify such a step, nor have I heard a single alternative proposal which we should adopt in preference to the award made by an impartial tribunal. No one has suggested that the tribunal was anything but expert and impartial, and surely if we put aside an arbitration award of a tribunal of this character it would lead to all sorts of difficulties. I was amazed when the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said that coal royalties were exactly the same as any other form of property. He must know that there are

very few forms of property more speculative than coal. For example, after a time coal in a particular area may be worked out, and, further, no one can tell what amount of coal lies under a particular area. His suggestion that all forms of property must be valued on the same basis is obviously absurd. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) made a very eloquent speech and a very impassioned attack on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. As one brought up in another church I cannot be accused of special partiality for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but when the hon. Member was making his attack I asked myself whether when the new Coal Commission became a big coal landlord it will deal any more tenderly with the miners of Durham than the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
The arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite all seem to me to smack a great deal of prejudice. I can see no more reason why attacks should be made upon the owners of property because it happens to be in coal any more than on people who have inherited fortunes made out of biscuits or chocolates, or anything else. The burden of the speeches of hon. Members opposite has been simply an appeal to prejudice. The Bill is not going to give immediate benefit to the miners. I sympathise with the point of view underlying the Amendment; they would like to have some immediate benefit. I am supporting the Bill because I believe the nationalisation of royalties, from the psychological point of view, will be of great benefit to the industry, but I do not think that any immediate benefit is going to be derived. If hon. Members opposite should at any time be in power will they introduce the methods of nationalisation which they are proposing in the Amendment? If they say that house property is to be taken over by the State, are they going to set up an impartial tribunal then and then reduce the award they give by one-third? We want to know this, because it is extremely important. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) asked why the Labour party had put forward the Amendment. I can tell him. A few months ago they were in favour of compensation, but since then the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has reached their Front Bench, and hon. Members opposite have been


studying his works. Unless hon. Members opposite can put forward an alternative method of valuation and tell us in what way the award is unfair or wrong, we must resist the Amendment.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), and I was amazed that he of all people should have taken the line he did in defence of property. I want to appeal from the hon. Member for Central Leeds to the great Denman, who was a Law Officer of the Crown to the great Reform Government over 100 years ago. He had to advise his Government on the same question of property in land, namely, the right of the owner of certain lands to return Members to this House merely because he was the owner of the land. One gentleman said, "Why, I have only recently paid £32,000 for a miserable little park that would not be worth anything like that sum of money but for the fact that it gives me the right to return two Members of Parliament." The hon. Member's distinguished ancestor advised the Government of that day that whether it was property or not, these people ought not to be compensated—and they were not compensated. To-day we have heard, I cannot call him "the great Denman," because I should be out of order in alluding to him by name, but we have heard the hon. Member for Central Leeds, the hereditary depository for that sound doctrine, advancing the argument he has with regard to this particular kind of property. I am reminded of the words of the great poet Lowell:
A mountain stream that ends in mud Methinks is melancholy.
The hon. Member is the representative of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, probably the worst-hated royalty owners in the country. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who worked for many years in the pits in my constituency, has breathed here to-day the resentment that I heard only as recently as last Saturday night voiced in my constituency, regarding the body for whom the hon. Member speaks in this House. I can assure him that this feeling with regard to the injustice of this Measure when it deals with compensation to be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners

is deeply felt in the county of Durham. One has only to mention the visit of a distinguished man to South Shields just over 100 years ago for the purpose of dealing with this subject, to show how long it is that this problem of dealing with coal royalties in the way proposed in this Bill has been before the public. William Cobbett was in South Shields in October, 1832, and this is what he wrote:
Almost the whole of the country hereabouts is owned by that curious thing called the Dean and Chapter of Durham. Almost the whole of South Shields is theirs, granted upon leases with fines at stated periods. This Dean and Chapter are the lords of the Lords. Londonderry, with all his huffing and strutting, is but a tenant to the Dean and Chapter of Durham, who souse him so often with their fines that it is said that he has had to pay them more than a hundred thousand pounds within the last ten or twelve years. What will Londonderry bet that he is not the tenant of the public before this day five years?
That was written in 1832. In 1937 we are still dealing with the same problem. The passage goes on:
There would be no difficulty in these cases, but on the contrary a very great convenience; because all these tenants of the Dean and Chapter might then purchase out-and-out, and make that property freehold, which they now hold by a tenure so uncertain and so capricious.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I understand Cobbett wanted the people to buy it; he did not want it to be nationalised.

Mr. Ede: I was talking about what Cobbett said 100 years ago, the time in which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) usually lives. Cobbett was dealing with the problems of 100 years ago. He pointed out the advantage of having this system nationalised.

Mr. Williams: Making the property freehold.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member listened only to the part which he thought would suit what he is pleased to call his argument. Cobbett asked what would Lord Londonderry bet that within five years he would not be a tenant of the public. He visualised nationalisation. He might indeed have thought that it would then be better for the nation to sell the property as required, but undoubtedly he expected nationalisation to come first.
I would like now to deal briefly with the question of the amount. Is it contended that the Government are bound


by this amount? Is it contended that the Government, if they did not like the figure recommended by the Greene Committee, would then be compelled to drop the whole subject? Let us assume that the Greene Committee has said that 40 years purchase would be the appropriate number of years. Would the Government, if they thought that figure too much, be compelled to drop the subject altogether? While they remain the Government of this country, surely they are entitled to bring in a Bill containing any figure which they think fit to ask hon. Members to adopt. It is true that they have an argument in support of this figure inasmuch as the Greene Committee have recommended it, but I venture to say that the House of Commons is still sovereign, even over the Greene Committee, and if this Committee wishes to say that it will go either higher or lower than the Greene Committee, there is nothing in the British Constitution which places the Greene Committee above the House of Commons or compels the Government to adopt the figure recommended by the Greene Committee. Frankly, we feel, for various reasons, including those that will be advanced on the next Amendment, that £66,000,000 is too high a figure to take, and we suggest that a fair figure, having regard to the national interest, and the number of years during which this problem has been before the public, is £44,000,000. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) that if the royalty owners get £44,000,000, they will do exceedingly well and ought to consider themselves very lucky.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Crossley: Clearly the Labour party have to-night put forward their most ingenious and erudite speakers in defence of an Amendment which really states a very simple proposition. I wish briefly to restate that proposition to the Committee. In the first place, there was on the part of the Government the determination to acquire mining royalties, and for that purpose they set up an independent tribunal. I do not know whether it was a question of a willing seller and a willing buyer, because clearly the willing seller was bound to accept the findings of the tribunal, and the Government need not, if they did not wish to do so. That tribunal recommended an amount of £66,000,000 and hon. Members opposite have put down an

Amendment to reduce the amount by one-third, to £44,000,000. The argument on which they base their Amendment is that they consider 10 years' purchase to be long enough.
But is that always to be the principle which hon. Members opposite will adopt whenever they determine, in the days when they rule this country, if ever they do, to take over this or that industry or this or that form of property? Is that to be the method by which they will determine the sums to be paid in compensation. Will they appoint an independent tribunal and then fix the sum to be paid at two-thirds of the figure which the tribunal finds? Certainly that does not represent a belief in confiscation, because if they believed in confiscation they would not be willing to pay £44,000,000; and certainly it is not a belief in compensation, to the full at any rate. Apparently it is a compromise. They say that they will compensate to the extent of two-thirds of the sum which an independent tribunal finds to be the value of the property, but that they will confiscate one-third. If that is the sort of treatment of property that is to be meted out in future, it will indeed inspire fear among the moderate-minded people of the country.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: This Debate has been very successfully conducted by my hon. Friends, and my only reason for intervening at this stage is to reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell) and the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley). We have been challenged on the general principle of compensation and as to what will happen in future if any question arises as to the acquisition of private property by the State. Let me say, in the first place, that, as far as the Labour party are concerned, no principle arises in the matter of compensation or indeed in the matter of confiscation. It is purely a question of expediency, and of what is best in the circumstances. That has been demonstrated by the Government themselves in relation to this matter, and it is for the Government to reply to any attack that may be made upon them in that regard. For my part, I merely say that if, in the future, the question of State acquisition of property should arise, as undoubtedly it will, for the principle of State acquisition has been accepted by this Government and


there must be a development of that principle in due course, we shall be able to follow the lead set by this Government, and on the proper assumption that coal—and here I quote the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman)—is in the same category as any other form of property, clearly we ought not to pay more than the price based on the number of years purchase provided for in this Bill. That is a simple way of dealing with the matter. Clearly, if that is to be the maximum assessment, no charge can be levelled against this party if, in some future case, it decides, as we are demanding to-night, that there should be a reduction in the years of assessment.
What is the basis of the case which we are advancing? In my judgment, and with the greatest respect to many of my hon. Friends, it has very little to do with the miners, for I do not believe that the miners will gain a penny piece merely as a result of the State acquisition of royalties, whatever they may gain from any reorganisation subsequently effected in the industry, either by amalgamation or any other form of reorganisation. Even then, any change that would be calculated to improve the conditions of the miners is remote. Therefore, let us for a moment disregard the position of the mineworker in relation to the question we are now discussing. What is happening is that we are converting what is undoubtedly an industrial risk into a gilt-edged security. Of that there is no dispute.

Mr. Denman: Mr. Denman indicated dissent.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) does not agree, but let me put to him and to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade the following proposition. Let us assume that this Bill had not been brought up and that in the ordinary course of events, voluntary amalgamations had been effected in the industry. It will not be disputed that in such a contingency, pits that were regarded as uneconomic would have been closed. But voluntary amalgamations might have gone much further than the closing down of pits or even of colliery undertakings; they might have led to the wholesale closing down of districts. Will it be denied that, for the purpose of meeting the needs of the consumers of coal, both in the internal markets and the export markets, we could produce all the

coal required by concentrating on two or three coal districts? North Wales, Northumberland, and, apart from the gas-coal produced in Durham, much of the Durham coalfields, and, apart from the anthracite area in Western Wales, much of the bituminous coal area of South Wales, could be closed down, and yet we could produce all the coal required to meet the requirements of the internal and external markets. If voluntary amalgamations led to a situation of that sort, clearly the royalty owners, in the absence of State acquisition and the compensation arising from it, would lose their property rights and there would be no royalty rents.
My contention is that there is at present a serious industrial risk in the owning of coal royalties. If the mining industry expands, the royalty owners will gain, but assuming a serious trade depression and a diminution in the demand for coal what will happen to the export trade? These are not fantasies. Anyone familiar with the coal problem is aware that these things may happen. I hope they will never happen, but they may. In those circumstances, the royalty owners would have a property that was worth little or nothing, except in those districts where coal was being worked. Our case is—to repeat what I have already said—that the Government are here converting an industrial risk into a gilt-edged security. There is to be security for the royalty owners for many years to come.
As regards the amount which is to be paid to them, let us consider the situation. The royalty owners are to receive an amount based on 15 years purchase. The hon. Member for Central Leeds was questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) as to what he considered a fair price. I think that question ought to be answered. What do the royalty owners think is a fair price? They are accepting, very reluctantly, the proposition made by the Government arising from the arbitral award. They dislike intensely the financial Clauses of the Bill. Then what do they regard as a fair price? Is it £70,000,000, or £80,000,000, or, as the Samuel Commission preferred, £100,000,000, based on the findings of the Government valuer? Is it to be 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, or 30 years purchase? I think the answer can easily be found. They do not know. They


hope for the best, and they have got what is, I believe, in the opinion of many of the royalty owners themselves a very sound offer, having regard to all the circumstances that beset the mining industry.
If there were no security for the royalty owners in this proposition, one might be prepared to offer a larger measure of compensation. We have been challenged on this question of compensation. We accept it, as I have said, on the basis of expediency, but certainly not if it means inflicting serious financial losses on the community or on the industry concerned. In other words, compensation, yes, but not inflated compensation. I think that is a fair proposition. But leaving that question aside if, as I maintain, security is afforded to the royalty owners—and I think that is indisputable—why should they complain? How can it be argued that there would be less security for them on the basis of 10 years purchase? That would mean more than £40,000,000 for something which is after all, a wasting asset—an asset that might not be used throughout the whole of the coalfield but might only be used in part of it? In all the circumstances, I think we are justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick affirmed that we were attacking the royalty owners. I do not deny that there has been some criticism of them but where is the attack coming from in this instance? From the Government. The Government are acquiring the royalty owners' property. The Government have accepted the arbitral award, and if the royalty owners have any case at all, it must be against the right hon. Gentleman opposite and not against hon. Members on this side, who have always opposed the claims of the royalty owners and who are not inexperienced on issues of this kind. The hon. Member for Central Leeds was, I presume, defending the rights of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and he said almost everything on that head, except the one thing which ought to be said. How did the Ecclesiastical Commissioners acquire this property? It would be interesting if the hon. Member were to indulge in a few revelations on that subject. If he is now disposed to give us the facts of the case, I shall be glad to give way to him. Apparently he is not disposed to do so on this occasion,

but perhaps on some other occasion before we are finished with this Bill, we shall hear from some representative of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the facts and figures concerning that body's acquisition of this property. Did they pay for it, and how much did they pay for it?
I suggest this—it is speculation on my part, but I think it could be supported by evidence—that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if they ever did pay for this property, paid much less for it than the Government are now proposing to pay to them. What, then, is their complaint? Why are they critical of the Government's proposal? Whether they are good or bad property-owners is beside the point. The hon. Member for Central Leeds spoke with elation and enthusiasm of their virtues, but it would be most surprising if they had no virtues. After all, we expect virtue from that quarter. But what we are concerned with is that the public, when they are acquiring private property, should not be asked to pay more than a fair price, fixed on a proper valuation. In our judgment, 10 years' purchase is a fair assessment; the amount suggested in the Amendment is a fair price to provide security for the royalty owners and it is, on the whole, fair to the public.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: We have had an extremely interesting Debate on a subject of great importance. I do not pretend that I am going to follow all the ramifications which we have pursued during the last two hours. The interesting reminiscences of Cobbett which have been quoted are not going to lead me, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) would like, into a discussion of the gambling transaction with a relation of mine 100 years ago, on which, apparently, if it had happened 100 years later, he would have lost. The real point at issue is considerably narrower than some of the speeches indicate. It has nothing to do with the respective merits of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and of other royalty owners, either as owners of coal or as owners of ground rents—a subject which at one time during the evening we found ourselves discussing. The issue is simply this. First, is it right, if the State is taking for its own purposes property which people to-day enjoy under the protection of the law, that those people


should be paid fair compensation for the property which the State acquires? Secondly, if that be so, is the method which the Government have proposed in this instance such as to ensure that the compensation, which is to be paid and which is included in the Bill, will be fair?
I am not at all surprised that the Opposition have raised this Amendment, and they will not be surprised at our rejecting it, because, of course, we are on this question in quite a different position. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) spoke about being bound in honour, and some hon. Members opposite resented that because they thought it was applied to them. They are quite right to resent it, because they made it from the first perfectly clear in questions and supplementary questions, which were asked when the present Prime Minister made his announcement in the House of Commons, that they were not bound; but no one can deny that the Government and the members of the Government are in honour bound to accept the award of an arbitral tribunal to which they agreed and which has reported. We have, I think, taken the fairest possible method of arriving at a proper sum to be paid in this case. I am not concerned with arguments which hon. Members used as to how mining royalties were acquired somewhere in the time of Queen Elizabeth or the particular use to which particular people have put them since.
This Measure, although it does mean taking away from the existing owners of the royalties their property, has not been introduced by the Government as a penal measure with the object of punishing those who happen to own this particular form of property. It has been introduced by the Government to help the industry, and it does happen that those who own the property in coal own property which the Government think can be exploited better in the national interest and in the interest of the coal industry by a unified body such as we propose rather than by the individual owners who now possess it. And it is no new thing, and no new precedent is set up by the Government in this Bill, when it is proposed that under circumstances such as these the Government should acquire that kind of property and pay compensation. When the Government

wish a trunk road to go between two towns, they acquire the land, which, while it remains in private hands, remains an obstacle to that road passing through.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to reply, as his speech indicates, that the State is purchasing this property? As far as I understand it, there is no State purchase. The money that will be used in order to purchase royalties will come out of the mining industry and not out of State funds at all. On three occasions the right hon. Gentleman has referred to State purchase, but it is not that.

Mr. Stanley: I think that hon. Members are entirely familiar with the financial provisions of the Bill, and I am sorry if I used a term which seems to have excited prejudice. It does not alter the principle that whatever the financial means by which this statutory Commission is going to finance the purchase of royalties, the royalty owners whose property is acquired should get a fair deal. We believe that the method adopted by the Government was the right method to secure that. We first of all tried to find the method of negotiation, tried to reach an agreement between ourselves and the royalty owners as to what we both considered was a fair price to pay. That, as hon. Members know, failed, and we were unable to reach agreement. It was, therefore, provided that this question should be referred to what is now known as the Greene Committee for their decision. This tribunal was to determine the amount which the fee simple of all unworked coal in all mines in Great Britain and certain rights between the parties ancillary thereto might be expected to realise if sold in the open market by a willing seller.
I need not again go through the agreement as to the annual value upon which the years of purchase were to be counted. But the Government, in announcing that decision, stated that the royalty owners had agreed to be bound by the decision of the tribunal, but that the Government were free to accept it or not. We reserved that right, as I think any Government has to reserve the right, in case, much to our surprise, the tribunal had awarded a sum which made the finance of the whole scheme impossible, and to which, therefore, no Government could have been bound. But certainly this tribunal,


having been set up, whatever the tribunal reported, it would be wrong if we then proceeded to legislate to get some lower sum, in this case lower by one-third, as hon. Members opposite desire. Now the hon. Gentleman says to Members on this side, as a terrible threat, I think, that if they were in power and they came to nationalise other forms of property and other forms of industry, they would follow the lead set by this Government. The hon. Gentleman said, "Follow the lead set by this Government." If they are going to follow that lead, if, whenever they are going to nationalise some form of property, they are going to set up a tribunal of the status and impartiality of the Greene Committee and are prepared to abide by that tribunal's decision, I do not think the threat a menacing one, because that is the precedent which has been set up by the Government.
The hon. Member then made an extraordinary point, of which I will say, in justice to a Member for whose acumen I have a great regard—I will say in justice to him that he borrowed it at the last moment from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), and would never have advanced it on his own account. It seemed one of the most tortuous arguments that I had ever heard, even from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—the curious argument that, because a tribunal in dealing with one particular form of property had awarded a compensation based on a particular number of years—because for one particular form of property a certain number of years had been fixed—that that was to be taken as the measure of compensation which was always to be awarded for any type of property under any circumstances.
It seems to me the most ludicrous conclusion, and the absurdity was borne out by the hon. Gentleman himself in his speech, because towards the end he forgot this rather bad argument which he had borrowed from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and started a much better argument of his own. He argued that the real reason why we ought to reduce the compensation was that mining royalties were a serious industrial risk. He went on to describe exactly why they were a serious industrial risk, differing from all other forms of property, because anthracite might be concentrated in one place, production might be concentrated

in Yorkshire, voluntary amalgamations might close down this or that district, and other things might happen which could not happen to other forms of property. He went on to show that because that serious industrial risk had been changed ino a gilt-edged security, we ought to reduce the compensation available. I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman as himself much better than I enjoyed him as seconder of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
I understand the purpose of hon. Members opposite in moving this Amendment. Many of them have been franker and simpler than either the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale or the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). They have not challenged the validity of the award or the fairness of the compensation. They have said, in effect, that they would like it to be lower, because if it were lower, more would be available for the miners. I can sympathise with that as a desire, but I do not believe it is the sort of basis upon which this Government, or indeed their own party if they ever came into power and proceeded to put their schemes into effect, could really proceed when they were dealing with compensation for property that they acquired. I believe that the Government have taken every step to safeguard both the rights of the property holder whose property they are acquiring and the rights of the body to whom this property is to be transferred. We are in honour bound to accept the award of the tribunal that we set up, an award which I believe is fair and just to both the parties concerned.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I am sure that hon. Members appreciate most of the remarks that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman, but he has forgotten to tell us about one significant point with regard to the terms of reference to the tribunal. Was the tribunal under the impression in fixing the purchase price for royalties that there would be a lapse of practically five years before the purchase was complete? If they were not under that impression, the Amendment for a ten years' purchase represents a sum about equivalent to what the tribunal recommended. There is another important point that ought to have been contained in the terms of reference. We understand


that they took the round figure of £4,000,000 a year and multiplied it by 15 to make the global sum. They might have been told that the Government had on the stocks proposals for compulsory amalgamations, and the Government might have placed before them some evidence of what the effect of such amalgamations would be as the years went by. That £4,000,000 might, after the Government's amalgamation proposals had been put into effect, have been £3,000,000 a year. Instead of that, the tribunal have multiplied the £4,000,000 by 15 as if £4,000,000 will be the annual payments in royalties 13, 14 or 15 years hence.

Mr. Wragg: It might be £5,000,000.

Mr. Williams: Most eminent engineers consider that it will be less. These two matters are interlocked. The Government must have had in mind a depleting asset and the redundancy that will be created by their amalgamation proposals. Otherwise, we should not have had at this stage the questions of royalties and amalgamations interlocked. The royalty owners are making a splendid bargain. In the Welsh provincial Press we find a speech of an eminent mining engineer, Captain William Llewellyn. He was speaking at Swansea on Saturday, and he said he could visualise that in ten years time the 35 collieries that come under the anthracite group may be reduced to about ten. He can foresee things as they are likely to be ten years hence, and it is obvious that that is the tendency of the industry. Output is increasing per individual, it is concentrated into larger units, and there are certain areas in which there is no prospect of coal development at all. The royalty owners are really making a splendid bargain in this Bill. If the tribunal had been told that by compulsory amalgamation the amount per annum might be reduced by £100,000 a year for the first ten years or so, and had been given an assessment of the number of concerns that will be producing coal and where those concerns are likely to be over a period of years, I doubt whether they would have multiplied the £4,000,000 a year by 15. The royalty owners have a splendid bargain, for they are being treated as if £4,000,000 would have been paid for the next 15 years with no contraction at all. In view of that contention our Amendment is a reasonable one.
I do not want to go into the recommendations of the Sankey Commission. Miners will recall what has happened after 18 years. They will recall that certain recommendations were put into effect, such as the shortening of the working day. They will recall that the last Conservative Government increased that day by an hour and made the miners work an extra hour for nothing. When we talk about fairness, miners will recall that a little while ago we were talking about compensation awards to dependants. In their case the average wage was multiplied by three years and the maximum was £600. That would be assuming a multiplication by six. Here the royalty owners, with an asset that is wasting, are to be compensated with 15 years' purchase. Fairness is not in the calculation at all. In the case of human life, three years; in the case of property, 15 years. This is just where we find ourselves in opposition to the Government. It is another piece of class legislation such as is usually advanced by this Government. Property interests are well self-guarded, but when any Bill is brought before Parliament in which consideration has to be given to human life, then it is the minimum figure which is suggested by hon. Members opposite. We look upon this Amendment as suggesting a very reasonable figure indeed, and we had hoped that most Members would support it.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans: I should like in two or three sentences to explain why I, personally, and I think some of my hon. Friends, will support the Government in regard to this Amendment. What we are concerned with is the price which the State should pay for something which the State wants. When one is buying something, there are three ways of arriving at the purchase price. One can pay the seller what the seller asks; and probably in private life that is what most of us do. Or one can try to bargain with him; and if one does that, it is only on very rare occasions that one comes off better than under the first mode of procedure. In the third place one can arbitrate upon the price, and that is what was done in this case. The arbitration was conducted by men of great ability and great experience. No one challenges their bona fides or their capacity, and therefore it seems to me that very strong reasons ought to be


adduced in order to dissuade the Committee from accepting what the arbitrators have suggested.
I was very pleased to welcome the announcement that the Government were prepared to adopt the policy of unification of royalties, but a little apprehensive about what would happen when the terms were referred to arbitration. I was rather afraid that the sum fixed might be so small that the royalty owners would exercise sufficient pressure on the Government to prevent that policy being carried out, or that the sum might be so big that the Government would be afraid to face the undertaking. In the result the figure fixed by the arbitrators is not very far removed from the fair and reasonable estimates which had been made beforehand of what the unification of royalties would be likely to cost the State. Therefore, it seems to me the Government have no option but to accept the award which was made. I think the public would also be wise to accept the award. This is not likely to be the last occasion on which the principle of nationalisation will be put into operation, and I believe that here we have a very valuable precedent which will be of great use in the case of any other great undertaking comparable to this.
In saying that I do not commit myself to the support of the argument used by the hon. Member who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench when he said that because 15 years' purchase had been accepted in this instance, 15 years was to be the extreme limit which the country would have to pay in connection with nationalisation in any case. I do not think that is a fair argument, and I feel that it was discountenanced completely by the rest of the argument when he was complaining that in view of the uncertainty of the value of royalties, and of other uncertainties in the coal industry, the figure was too high.
I think the country would be wise to accept this precedent, because it does show how easily and, if I may say so, how fairly the principle of nationalisation can be put into practical operation, and how smoothly it can be done. The tribunal was a fair and a capable one, and I think it has arrived at a fair figure, and therefore the Committee ought to adopt it. I have but one other word to say. My hon. Friend the Member for

Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) said the royalty owners had made a very good deal—I think they have made a fair deal —and I think the country also has made a good deal, and that is an additional reason for supporting the Government.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: I have been tempted to speak largely by what the Minister told us and by the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for the Welsh University (Mr. E. Evans). We are invited by the Minister and the hon. and learned Member to be grateful for the proposal which the Government have put before us. I speak as one who spent the best part of his life in the mining industry, and I do not feel the least grateful for the proposal. I do not regard this as the nationalisation of the mining royalties. This is not nationalisation. This is a proposal to compensate, to buy out, the owners of mining property, not at the expense of the State, but at the expense of the men who have always paid these claims, who have paid year by year for hundreds of years. The right hon. Gentleman said that these claims go back as far as the reign of Queen Elizabeth. I have made a computation, and the Committee will be surprised to know that in the aggregate no less than £300,000,000 has been paid in this country as mining royalties to people who have laid all kinds of claims, within the law, to the ownership of the nation's coal.
We are asked to pay respect to the tribunal which, having accepted the assumption of rights on the part of the royalty owners, went on to discharge their claims by recommending so many years' purchase. We were told that this great tribunal, this just tribunal, this fair and perfect tribunal, were right in recommending 15 years' purchase. I suppose 16 would have been wrong, and 14 equally wrong, but 15 years appears to be the ideal, the only just, computation. To discharge this claim it is not proposed to pay royalties at the existing rate for 15 years. Oh no, it is a different proposal. It is proposed to pay the present rate of royalty payments multiplied by 15, and to pay it now as a capital sum. Every elementary schoolboy knows that that is not 15 years' purchase, but much more than 15 years of royalties. The proposal is not to pay 15 years' royalties, but to pay as 15 years' purchase a sum


which amounts in the aggregate to £66,450,000.
Even so, the property is not to be vested in the Commission for four years, and so the royalty owners have four years during which the payments will be very much higher than at present. It is estimated that the output of coal will be 250,000,000 tons in 1937; if we are not mistaken the output next year will be still higher; and if a slump does not come sooner than the Government anticipate, we shall have a still higher output in 1939. So we can expect payments for the next 2½ years which are far greater than the payments made in the last 2½ years. We say that this basis is entirely wrong, because all these payments are made in respect of a vanishing asset. They are made in respect of coal which is now being worked and they are to be paid to-day, although that coal will be worked out in the course of the next five or ten years. It would be infinitely better to continue paying royalties on the annual basis than to pay these people a capital sum which can be converted into a gilt-edged security which will be very much higher in value than the future royalties could be.
Therefore, we say the basis of compensation is too high—I am permitted to say that, and that only, on this Amendment—but I do want to argue this point before the Committee, because I feel sure the Committee will come to the same conclusion, if they start their examination of the problem from the same point and follow the examination which I am about to make.
This basis of £4,470,000 a year for 15 years is based on the assumption that the output will be 250,000,000 tons a year, but that is not a fixed output. It has been very much less in the past and may be very much higher in the future. The Committee should be invited to look at this matter in the light of the probability that the output will not increase indefinitely in this country. Vast economies have been effected in the utilisation of coal. Large quantities of coal go for domestic consumption, but there is a considerable annual saving in the consumption of coal due to increased efficiency in the burning of it. Unless a boom sets in which results in a large and sustained increase in industrial production, the probability is that we shall require less, and

not more, coal for the maintenance of our industrial productivity. I have given the figure for the payments already made. I will now give an entirely new figure, which is that 10,000,000,000 tons of coal have already been worked in this country. The Mines Department have vertified this figure, and I have verified it for myself by making an estimate of the production in past years. Many coalfields in respect of which royalties are paid now and which are in full production, have been greatly denuded of their resources in the working of this vast quantity in the last 200 or 300 years, and many of the present coalfields are almost exhausted.
I do not like to make a sensational report here, because of the men who are working, but it would be true to say that many coalfields in the North of England and in Scotland will find themselves with a very bleak prospect in the next 50 or 60 years. They are not so rich in mineral deposits as they were. Nevertheless, it is in respect of the output now gained from these coalfields that the valuation is to be made, as though the output would go on for ever, without end. Some of the coalfields were being worked in the days of Queen Elizabeth and in Tudor times, and others were being worked even as far back as the days of the Romans. They were the coalfields where the coal was so plentiful that it was shown on the surface and worked on the surface, and to the landowners who owned the property where coal was worked in those conditions the first royalty rights were accorded. I doubt very much whether the same kind of right would have been conceded if their rights of ownership had been examined in present day conditions.
Let me give to the Committee the history, which is not sufficiently known, of the Kent coalfields. In 1847, about 90 years ago, a shrewd geologist, in the early days when the science of geology had not made the progress it has made to-day, carried out certain observations, extending right from Ireland, through South Wales, through the South of England and Northern France as far as Westphalia. He made a calculation—

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not think we can regard this history as in order on this Amendment.

Mr. Grenfell: I would like to show the difference between two kinds of royalties.


There are the old coalfields which are nearly exhausted and the new coalfields and those yet to be proved and discovered, and whose value is not yet known. In respect of the Kent coalfields, there was no claim until recent times to the ownership of the coal, because coal was not known to be present there and the landowner could make no claim. He did not know that there were any surface indications, or any other sign that coal existed under his land. The strange story is that when a geologist told the landowners that coal existed there under their land, they did not believe it and they protested most strongly at the suggestion that Kent might be converted into a coalfield. At the expense of much boring and sinking, coal was discovered in Kent, at distances of 1,500, 2,000 and 2,500 feet. The landowners then held out their hands and said that they claimed the royalties. The royalty has been created under very different conditions. There had been no effort on the part of the landowners; the coal was discovered by scientific men. I am not disputing the right under law of the Kent owners of the coal, but I would point out that these new measures, in Kent and elsewhere—and there are vast measures lying between Nottingham and Yorkshire and the sea, possibly extending under the whole of the county of Lincoln and into the North Sea—have not been proved. They will be proved only at great expense by boring in future years.
Does any hon. Member suggest that there is a right to compensation for coal hidden 3,000 or 4,000 feet below the surface? There is no step by which you can determine the right of the owner of such land, even though the existence of coal may be suspected. What compensation can be due to the man who does not know where his coal is, whether it lies 3,000 or 4,000 feet or more below the surface? This is a vital question. In regard to the coalfields now nearing exhaustion and, in many cases, exhausted, what right has the owner of the land to compensation for a right which will be exhausted in a very short time, on the supposition that the present output can be maintained for 5 or 10 years? Who is to pay compensation, and to whom is compensation to be paid? There is this global sum of £66,450,000 that has to be divided in some proportion. Nobody knows how much anybody is to get, or the basis upon which each one will claim his proportion.

This compensation will be paid from the industry itself. I am sorry that I got up after the Minister. I would like him to say during the later discussion of this Clause that this is not a case of State acquisition of minerals, and that the compensation is to be paid for by the workpeople themselves. There is to be no gain at all, so far as the workpeople are concerned. The man who gets coal to-day on a royalty charge of 6d. per ton will still find his output subject to the same charge. If the charge is a 1s., his output will still be subject to it. There are cases where the royalty has been charged at 2s. per ton, in my own working life, and in which the men got no more than 1s. for cutting and filling. I have known cases in which the royalty was twice as much as the men got for all their labour.
The compensation can be provided only by paying the same royalty rate per ton. It has been suggested in the Debate—I heard it on Second Reading, and I have heard it to-night again—that there is a psychological effect to be considered. People who are opposed to nationalisation and to interference with private property bring forward the argument that to take this property away from the private owner and to give it to the Commission will have beneficial results, because men will work harder. Would not the psychological effect be greater if you gave the royalty owners only half as much? It is because of my reluctance to accept this kind of argument that I have intervened in the Debate, and to answer some of the speeches to which I have listened. We are to pay the same rate of royalty. The royalty rates cannot be reduced; as far as I can see, there is no prospect of that. Indeed they may be largely enhanced. It is shameful that the House should be asked to pass an Act of Parliament giving the Commission the responsibility for finding each year £3,000,000 in interest, and so on. That money will have to be obtained from an output of 250,000,000 tons at an average rate of 5d. per ton. But I see clearly the possibility of the output dropping by 20 per cent. in less than five years, and, if the obligation still remains to provide a royalty rate which is now met by an output of 250,000,000 tons, it cannot be met on an output of 200,000,000 tons without increasing the royalty rate itself


by 20 per cent. There is no way of escape. Once the burden is thrown on the Commission, the Commission can only balance itself by making a higher demand per ton for royalty payments. If a slump should come, it will leave the industry with a heavier burden per unit of production than it has to bear at the present time.
This Bill, in my opinion, is not a Bill to compensate anybody for loss of property; it is a Bill for the permanent endowment of royalty owners. On the sum which they are to be given, namely, £76,000,000, they can get their 5 per cent. They can convert their property from royalties into other forms of property, and, unless some new Government comes into power in this country, they will be in the pleasant position of being able to draw from £3,500,000 to £4,000,000 a year for ever, while the coal is being worked away. In course of time the whole of that property will have gone away in smoke, but their claim to a settled income will go on for ever. That is the gist of the Bill, and that is why some of us are so strongly opposed to it. This is not State ownership. The State is not going to pay. It is the men who dig the coal who will pay. I stand here in the strongest spirit of revolt and protest against this idea, as one who worked for 23 years, man and boy, in the coal pits. In the whole of that time I was paid less than £2,000, for 23 of the best years of my life spent in the mines of this country. I have given 2½ years of hard labour and servitude to a royalty owner. Everything that I did in 2½ years went to royalty owners. During those 2½ years I had to keep myself, so I think

it is a fair computation to say that, allowing 2½ years for providing myself with the means of sustenance while I worked, the whole of my labour for 5 years of my life went to the service of a landowner in royalty payments. Does anyone think that there is a fair, just, human or moral claim to the continuation of that state of things? There is no sign that that kind of thing is going to cease under the Bill; these payments are to go on.

If I could speak according to my own heart, and with no regard for Parliamentary procedure, I would say that not one penny piece more should go to the royalty owners. They have already drawn too much. They have kept the working people of this country poor. The levy drawn from the miner in royalties is sufficient to provide every miner's family in this country with a house of the freehold value of £500. I would not pay the royalty owners a penny more. I must, however, refrain from pursuing that argument, but I would ask the House to look at this subject from the miners' point of view and from the national point of view. You are not getting national property; you are only changing the form of servitude. The power behind the servitude is simply passing from the mineowner to the Commission. If we cannot get the House to agree to there being no compensation, I beg the Committee not to vote this large sum of over £66,000,000, but to vote for the Amendment which has been moved.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 109.

Division No. 51.]
AYES.
[9.11 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bracken, B.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cox, H. B. Trevor


Albery, Sir Irving
Brass, Sir W.
Cranborne, Viscount


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Craven-Ellis, W


Allen, Ll.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page


Apsley, Lord
Bull, B. B.
Crooke, J. S.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Assheton, R.
Butler, R. A.
Croom-Johnson, R P.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Cross, R. H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Cary, R. A.
Crossley, A. C.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Davidson, Viscountess


Balniel, Lord
Channon, H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Clarke, F. E. (Dartferd)
Dawson, Sir P.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
De la Bère, R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Bernays, R. H.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Denville, Alfred


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Blair, Sir R.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Doland, G. F.


Boulton, W. W.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Drewe, C.




Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Dugdale, Captain T. L
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Duncan, J. A. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rowlands, G.


Eastwood, J. F.
Kimball, L.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Ellis, Sir G.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Salt, E. W.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Levy, T.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lewis, O.
Savery, Sir Servington


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Liddall, W. S.
Scott, Lord William


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lipson, D. L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Fleming, E. L.
Little, Sir E. Graham.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Foot, D. M.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Furness, S. N.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclay, Hon. J. p.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Magnay, T.
Spens, W. P.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Maitland, A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mander, G. le M.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Markham, S. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Train, Sir J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Munro, P.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hambro, A. V.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hannah, I. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wells, S. R.


Harbord, A.
Owen, Major G.
White, H. Graham


Harris, Sir P. A.
Peake, O.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.




Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Holmes, J. S.
Procter, Major H. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hopkinson, A.
Radford, E. A.
Wise, A. R.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ramsbotham, H.
Wragg, H.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Hunter, T.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)



James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Captain Waterhouse and Major




Herbert.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leslie, J. R.


Adamson, W. M.
Frankel, D.
Logan, D. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gardner, B. W.
Lunn, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McEntee, V. La T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maxton, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Messer, F.


Barr, J.
Groves, T. E.
Milner, Major J.


Batey, J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Montague, F.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bevan, A.
Hardie, Agnes
Muff, G.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Naylor, T. E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Henderson. T. (Tradeston)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hicks, E. G.
Oliver, G. H.


Burke, W. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Paling, W.


Cassells, T.
Hollins, A.
Parker, J.


Chater, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Price, M. P.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


Dalton, H.
Kirby, B. V.
Riley, B.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lathan, G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Day, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leach, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Ede, J. C.
Lee, F.
Shinwell, E.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leonard, W.
Short, A.







Silkin, L.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Silverman, S. S.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Simpson, F. B.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Tinker, J. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Walkden, A. G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watkins, F. C.



Sorensen, R. W.
Watson, W. McL.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. G. Macdonald: I beg to move, in page 6, line 30, at the end, to insert:
less the amount that represents the rents and profits accruing between the valuation date and the vesting date from the interests to be acquired.
The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has kindly referred to me as being a generous person, and, in moving this Amendment, I hope I shall not belie that reputation. This Amendment gives the royalty owners £66,450,000—the sum that the Bill gives them—provided that they have been paid on or before the valuation date. The purpose of the Amendment is to frustrate a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to give more. I referred to this on Second Reading, and the Chancellor then said:
If anyone imagines that we have postponed that date unnecessarily, they cannot be closely acquainted with the work that has to be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1937; col. 1085, Vol. 329.]
We are satisfied that a big job has to be done, but we are not satisfied that, provided the staff is adequate, it could not be done before the valuation date. We are certain that there is no need to wait until 1942 before this transaction is completed provided that it is completed then we have no objection, now that the last Amendment has been defeated, to £66,450,000 being paid, but we are not prepared to see another three-year period added.
It is all very well for the Government to tell us that this is a complicated job, but there is nothing to prevent payment on account being made before the completion of the task. Glance at Part IV of Schedule 3, which deals with payments on account. I am of opinion that under paragraph 19 it would be possible to complete the transaction, even though it needed more investigation. We argued on the last Amendment as to whether £66,450,000 is the right or wrong sum to give. The President of the Board of Trade said that the Government, after investigation, were satisfied that it was the right sum. Let it be £66,450,000

then, and do not, by various devices, add more for the royalty owners. We do not raise any objection to that amount being paid, but we think the Government should see that the royalty owners do not get any more.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I rise to support the Amendment. I do so for slightly different reasons from those put forward by my hon. Friend. I believe that as a nation we are only entering into our own. It is not a question with me of how quickly you can do the work. The question with me is that we are taking back now, by nationalisation, that which the owners of royalties never had any right to hold. I can well believe that the royalty owners are disappointed with the £66,450,000 that they have got; the Greene Tribunal will have disappointed them. We have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in which he said that the terms were agreed by the Greene Tribunal. I think the royalty owners must have been very sorry afterwards that the price was fixed on the basis of 15 years' purchase, but because of that disappointment they are to be consoled by an extension of the period by 3¾ years, during which they will receive royalties at the same rate as in the past. I have just been looking at the Second Reading speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and I notice that he said:
First of all, the net annual return to the royalty owners was agreed between the Government and the royalty owners at a sum of £4,430,000 per annum, and the tribunal was to be asked upon that basis to determine the value of the whole property."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1937; col. 889, Vol. 329.]
In my view that and that alone is the only sum that they are entitled to receive. As soon as this Bill is through, the deed is done. In all but the purchase price the minerals are nationalised, and, therefore, as far as the royalty owners are concerned, the minerals are no longer theirs. There will be a considerable amount of investigation spread over 3¾ years, during which time you are proposing to pay them a further sum of


£4,430,000 per annum—provided, of course, the output works out at that rate. Thus in 4½ years from now they will have received another £20,000,000. They are therefore going to receive in all something very near that £100,000,000 which has been spoken of in this House from time to time. The learned Attorney-General said they would proceed on the lines that property should not be taken until round about the date when the price could be paid, and he said that that was the ordinary principle applied to ordinary purchase. But this is not ordinary purchase. We are taking back what belonged to us. Further, it seems to me that exactly the opposite practice applies in other affairs such as house purchase. When the bona fides of the purchaser have been accepted, the purchaser gets the house, and the rent is his, although he has not actually put down the money for the house.
Let us take a different case with which I am more familiar—that of workmen's compensation—and the contrast between the treatment of the royalty owners and the men who are producing the coal upon which the rent is paid is dreadful. In cases of workmen's compensation, where the owners want to liquidate the compensation, they pay into court a certain sum, but it may not be acceptable, and the case may go on for a long time. It may even go to the High Court, but the injured person is not getting compensation at the rate of so much per week, plus that which he was entitled to as a lump sum at the end. Not at all. If that principle can be applied to an aged workman, it seems to me that it ought to be applied to the royalty owners. Let us take the case of liquidation, and we had some bitter experience of that in the coalfields. For some particular reason, such as we had when the coalowners locked us all out in 1926, compensation was paid weekly for some time, and then it was found that the owners were not prepared to continue paying compensation weekly, and they determined in the particular case I have in mind to compound and to pay a lump sum. Those lump sums were not paid for 12 months. In some cases that I know men did not receive anything for years. But it was said that the compensation crystallized on the day they gave notice. And my view is that this sum crystallizes when this Bill is placed upon the Statute Book, and the amount

of money received in the way of rent after that date should belong to the State. If the State does not know what to do with it, then make a pension fund for the miners, which would give general satisfaction.
Apart from that, I cannot see where there can be any benefit for the miners from this Bill during the lifetime of any miner working to-day. For some of them the seams will be pretty well worked out by the time that this is settled. A case was put before me some time ago of two men who got 61 tons in nine shifts, and when the deductions had been made there was 8s. 5d. a shift. The price for filling the coal was 8½d. a ton—and in some cases that is rather a high figure, because coal is being filled for as little as 6½d. a ton. If I remember rightly, during the last 14 years the royalty rent has been at the rate of 6¼d. per ton in Northumberland. What a ridiculous state of affairs that men should be filling coal—enduring hardships and braving dangers—for the same sum, and in some cases, under the system of machine mining, less than other men are receiving who can live in their castles and have their landed estates.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Mander: This Amendment is entirely different from the last one. We felt, with regard to the last, that it was right to support it because it was the result of arbitration, and I do not think that any Government coming into power could have dealt with it on different lines. Here you have an entirely different situation. When the arbitration board were asked to assess the value of this coal they were not told by the Government, "We want you to assess the value of this' as from five years from this date," or something of that kind. They value it more or less as at the present time. That certainly ought to be taken into consideration. It may be that these precise words are not the correct ones: I do not think that they are. They should be amended, and in the event of the Amendment being carried, we should propose, at a later stage, to move a further Amendment in order to bring it more into line with what should be correct. I would like to ask the Minister this question. I understand that he is going to have about three and a-half years to carry out this valuation with a certain staff which it is intended to put on to the work. Can he say what


that staff is likely to be? Would it not be possible to increase the staff, if necessary to double the staff, and if he were to do that, could he not carry through the valuation at a very much earlier date? I hope he will be good enough to deal with the point as to whether there could not be a great deal of expedition by increasing the staff which it is already contemplated to put on to this work. We shall support the Amendment.

9.37 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The Amendment raises very much—not quite in the same form—the point which we discussed the other night, when the hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to put the vesting date forward to 1940, and the arguments which they brought forward, and the arguments which I shall bring forward to combat the Amendment, are, therefore, more or less the same as on that occasion, because they turn on the length of time it will take to do the valuations. The hon. Gentleman just now said that the Tribunal were not putting the value as at five years from 1937. They were asked to give the value at the time they were making the case put before them. On an earlier Amendment somebody else made very much the same point, whether the Tribunal were under the impression that the transaction was going to be carried out forthwith or not. I can only remind the Committee of what the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said when he made the announcement of the setting up of the Tribunal to deal with this problem. He said, in dealing with notice being given as to whether the Tribunal's award was to be accepted or not:
If notice is not given, the Committee will be entitled to assume that the Tribunal's decision is acceptable to His Majesty's Government and that they will introduce during the present Session of Parliament a Bill to acquire the property on the basis of the Tribunal's decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1937; col. 980, Vol. 321.]
They knew that it was the intention to proceed. The Committee will remember that it was rather too late in that Session to hope to get it through, and we therefore passed the Registration Bill in order to facilitate the work, and we announced then that we would introduce a Bill in the autumn, which we have done. Therefore, the whole time-table is being carried out. There is the reference to the understanding

that, if we accepted the decision, we would legislate as soon as possible, and so it is here. I really think sometimes that people, not necessarily in this House but everywhere in the country, do not realise the magnitude of this project. It is a colossal undertaking. There is an enormous amount of value and a great number of properties. Hon. Gentlemen know that registration is already going on. There is the claiming, the valuing and the appeal, and, after all, granted that you are going to do this you have to make it fair as between claimant and claimant. The hon. Gentleman says, cannot you put on a great many more people to do it? In the Third Schedule we shall deal with the machinery of valuation, and so on, but the answer is, that the number of persons in this country, expert in valuing mineral property, is extremely small. This is not a subject, I am advised—and I have been in touch with the matter for some little time now—out of which one can just turn out somebody else who is a valuer for some other kind of property. I am sure that Members for mining seats who have experience of the mining districts realise that fact.

Mr. Mander: I take it that you will be employing them all.

Captain Crookshank: It is no desire of ours to prolong this matter. If we are to take over the property, we are only too anxious to take it over at the earliest moment possible. We cannot find from the estimates we are able to make that it will take less than three and a-half years. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment says that during that period the income should be deducted from the global sum, and that in his view this is a deliberate attempt by the Government to give the royalty owners more. It is not any attempt to give anybody any more than that to which they are entitled, but we recognise that the process is going to take a long time, and until the Commission can be in a position to pay out and accept that obligation, we feel that the only fair basis is the basis we have adopted, this notional contract for sale. All that has already been debated on earlier Clauses. That was the only way in which we saw that it could be done, and that is why we are putting it before the Committee and the House in this Bill.
When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) says that he thinks it should be done more quickly and that he is suspicious of our intentions, he can take it from me that there is nothing suspicious about it. We do not believe that it can be done more quickly—we wish that it could—and we have no ulterior motives in this matter whatever. The difficulty, as the Committee will recognise, of the principle of a global system, is that we cannot be sure of the full compensation until we have got to the point of finding out the amount for each person, and then, when we come to the next Clause as to whether the proportion should be either more or less than the original award, there is the difficulty of being able to make very large payments on account. The question of payments on account we can discuss later. There may be some which may be made to a certain extent, but the Commission will have to be safeguarded. If it should pay somebody a certain sum, it may be found, after the proportion has been worked out, that it is more than that to which they are entitled. We have given every kind of consideration to expediting the valuation proceedings, and I am sorry to say that we have not found it possible to put it at a less period than is contained here. Some hon. Members on the last occasion that the Bill was debated were very apprehensive that it would not be done in that time, and an hon. Gentleman opposite said something of the same kind. He did not think that it could be done so quickly. We think it can, and that is why we ask the Committee to accept the proposal.

9.44 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. and gallant Member really has not met the point of the Amendment. Let us for the moment assume that it is going to take four and a half years to carry through the division of the spoils among those who are to receive them. The question arises, who in the meantime should have the larger sum, that is, the rights from the royalties, and who should have the lesser sum, that is, the interest on the money raised? The material change in the status of the royalty owner takes place after this Bill has passed. Then he gets absolute security. His risk of his royalty is turned into an absolute certainty of getting a capital sum in respect of it. He gets a larger sum by

way of royalties because he has got the risk. The 15 years' purchase is taken as being the fair capitalisation cost of the risks that are attached to royalties. That is why 15 years is fixed, and not 20 or 25 years. The moment this Bill is passed he is entitled to his 15 years' purchase price, plus interest on the money as long as it remains unpaid, but instead of getting the interest on the money as long as it remains unpaid, he is to get the full royalty sum for four years, which is something like, on the estimates, twice—it may be more—the sum which may be payable by way of interest on £66,000,000. Therefore, over the period of four years there will be something between £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 which he will get in excess of the sum to which he is entitled, as having the right of the payment of a certain fixed sum based on the 15 years, plus interest until that sum is paid to him in full.
I am sure that the Minister for Mines cannot by any reason, once the royalty owner has had it made certain to him that he is to get a capital sum, justify the proposal that until he gets that sum he should get more than a fair rate of interest upon it. It is impossible to justify anything more than that. If he continues to get the royalties he should also continue to run the risks which are inherent in getting royalties, that is, the risk of his particular mine closing down, or whatever the risk may be. He runs that risk, not for a year or two but in perpetuity, because that is a risk which attaches to the receipt of the royalty. That is why he claims a higher sum by way of royalty than he is prepared to accept by way of interest on a certain capital sum paid by the Government. The very least that can be done is that instead of allowing the royalty owner to take the royalties from the valuation date up to the vesting date, he should from the valuation date up to the vesting date receive interest equal to the interest that he would be entitled to get by way of a capital sum.

Mr. Peake: What is the sum?

Sir S. Cripps: Obviously, the argument can be raised that the sum has not yet been ascertained, but there is no danger in paying a sum by way of interest, because any excess can be deducted from the capital sum which he eventually gets. Therefore, to pay him in advance a certain


amount of interest is quite a common risk and procedure. Suppose by way of interest he received three times too much, that will be still less than one-third of the capital sum that he would receive in 1942. It would be easy to adjust the matter when he came to be paid the capital sum, by deducting from the capital sum the excess of interest that he has received. Let us assume that a claim is put in for £10,000, and let us further assume that by writing down, that claim eventually becomes £5,000. The claimant gets, say, 3½ per cent. or 3 per cent. interest on that sum, pending its ascertainment. He will get £350 a year on £10,000 for three years. That would be £1,050. If at the end of the period it is found that the interest should not be £1,050 but that he should have got only £525, the extra £525 he has received can be treated as part payment of the capital sum, so that instead of getting £5,000 he will get £4,725, and there will be no risk. The Commission will be covered to the extent of £4,775. They will be perfectly safe as regards the cover. It will be perfectly easy to pay him that interest up to the time the capital is ascertained, and any access of interest can be set off against the capital when the capital becomes payable. Therefore, there is no risk and no difficulty in doing it in that way.
I assume that the hon. Member opposite has some anxiety how this can be worked out. He agrees, I suppose, that it is a fair way to do it if the thing can be done. He will appreciate that if this can be done it will save the Commission about £7,000,000, which is a very large sum of money even when we are talking of £66,000,000. It is 10 per cent. If by this device, which is perfectly fair, a sum of anything like 10 per cent. can be saved, there is no reason that I can see why it should not be done. The hon. Member must know perfectly well that it is the commonest thing in taking land of all sorts and kinds to enter into possession before the amount of the compensation is agreed or settled by arbitration. The compensation law is full of regulations by which by depositing bonds when dealing with private contracts, and so on, you can operate this system. Very often in these complicated cases it is two or three years before eventually the valuation claim is settled by arbitration, and there has never been any difficulty as far as

that is concerned. Nobody has ever suggested that it is not a perfectly feasible way of carrying it out. The moment an authority enters into possession of property it receives all the rents and pays the interest. There can be and have been provisions by which the interest can be paid if necessary from time to time by way of part payment of the purchase price.
There is no difficulty of any sort, technically, in doing this, if it is desired to be done. The only reason that can possibly lead the Government to desire not to do that is because they wish the royalty owners to get the £7,000,000, and not the Coal Commission. If the Minister really means what he says, that he would like to get into possession of this property as quickly as possible on behalf of the Coal Commission, he has this well known means of getting into possession. He can give the royalty owner a perfecly fair deal, pay him the full rate of interest from the time of valuation until the vesting date, the full rate of interest to be paid from time to time.

Captain Crookshank: On what?

Sir S. Cripps: Does the hon. and gallant Member really suggest that there is the slightest difficulty? Say there is a claim put in for £10,000. Very well, let the Commission say: "We are prepared to pay interest on your claim from that date at 3½ per cent."

Mr. Peake: Why does the hon. and learned Member say 3½ per cent? The royalties are speculative and they give 6½ per cent. on 15 years' purchase. Why should not the royalty owner invest his capital the same as any other security equally speculative and get an equal rate of interest?

Sir S. Cripps: The Government are guaranteeing the payment of this £66,000,000. The security they have is national security. I am dealing with the period in which he gets the cash. During that period he has the security of the Government, and he is not entitled on that security to get any more than the ordinary rates of interest which everybody else gets on Government securities. The fact is that during that period he is holding what is equivalent to a Government security instead of his royalties. That is the change made by the Bill. Up


to the date of vesting he holds Government security for payment by the Government, and on that he is entitled during that period to such rates of interest as owners of similar securities. I said 3½ per cent. because that is the rate recognised by the Government.
Let me come back to the hon. and gallant Member, and assume that a claim is made for £10,0000 and the Commission say that they are prepared to pay 3½ per cent. on the claim up to the date when the claim is settled. They pay, therefore, £350 a year, with the reservation that if it is found they have overpaid in interest it shall be set off against the capital sum. Assume that the capital sum is reduced by one-half or one-quarter, it does not make any difference; say it is £2,500. They will have paid £1,050 as interest in the three years. Instead of paying on a quarter of that sum, which is what they should have paid, £262 10s., they say, "We have overpaid you three times the amount of £262 10s., that is £787 10s., which we must deduct from the £2,500, and we will pay you the balance of the capital sum." That is an extreme case where there has been a claim four times the amount to which the claimant is entitled. There is no risk. The Commission can perfectly well pay the sum, and by doing so they save themselves the difference between 3½ per cent. on £66,000,000 and what is the annual amount received in royalties, which is calculated at something over £2,000,000 a year. Surely that is a perfectly fair way of dealing with everybody concerned, both with the royalty owners and with the Commission, and it will be saving a sum of £7,000,000 to the Commission. It will at least be some reduction of what we consider to be an excessive amount.

9.59 p.m.

Colonel Nathan: I have a footnote to add to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). In paragraph 19 of Schedule III the machinery which my hon. and learned Friend has been adumbrating is in terms set out. I agree with the Secretary for Mines that the valuation will be long and complicated. I agree that it will take fully three and a half years, possibly more. I agree too that the number of persons qualified to make this kind of valuation is extremely limited. They

will require to work on the past, and it will take them a much longer time, in my opinion, than the time allowed. But in Schedule III the Government have provided that before the valuation is made there may be a payment made by the Commission on account. The Schedule is not only explicit as to that, but it goes further and deals with the question of interest. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) asked my hon. and learned Friend, "Why 3½ per cent.?" I repeat that question: Why 3½ per cent., because the Government have provided in paragraph 19 of the Third Schedule that the rate of interest shall be 3 per cent. If it is possible for the Commission to pay a sum on account with interest at 3 per cent. before the relevant certificate has been given by the regional valuation board, why is it not possible for them to pay at an earlier date, namely, at the valuation date fixed by the Bill? Why should not the valuation and vesting date be one and the same? I can see no reason in logic why it should not be so, and I find the Minister's observation on the subject singularly unconvincing.
I can understand it being said that it is a very complicated question, that they do not know to whom they should pay, and that they are not sure whether the amount they pay will not be more than the ultimate amount payable. But the persons to whom these amounts are to be paid have to register under the Registration Act. If any royalty owner has refrained from registering, he has no one to blame but himself. The Bill in all likelihood will become law in the early part of 1938, and there is no suggestion in the Amendment for advancing the valuation date, which is January, 1939, and those who have not registered already will have plenty of time to do so between the passing of the Bill and the valuation date of January, 1939.
There is a more difficult question as to the Commission being satisfied that they are not paying more on account than will ultimately become payable, but the Schedule itself provides exactly how the sum paid is to be allocated as between interest and capital. The very thing which hon. Members of this side are seeking to effect by the Amendment is to some extent provided for under different circumstances in Schedule III. If any question is raised as to satisfying the


Commission that they will not be overpaying, if they wish to be more cautious, they can ask the owner, the registered owner, to make out a prima facie case, and it will be for him to satisfy the Commission by evidence that he has a claim for not less than a certain amount. That, in the circumstances contemplated by Schedule III, is the actual procedure which the Government are proposing to enact. There is a number of methods whereby a registered owner can make out a prima facie case. He can produce his Income Tax returns for previous years to show how much he has received, and that will form a basis on which he will be paid on account. I am sure the Minister, with his expert advisers, if he does not like that method of procedure, can find another which will satisfy the Commission that they are not making an overpayment on account. I think it is relevant to point out that owners will be receiving under the Bill as drawn a gross sum of over £15,000,000 in excess of the amount fixed by the Greene Committee.
It is worth bearing in mind that the reference to Sir Wilfrid Greene's Committee was that they should ascertain the

present value of a perpetual annuity. It will be agreed that 3½ years does not make very much difference to the value of a perpetual annuity, but that reinforces the argument that the £15,750,000, as near as may be, is a gratuitous payment over and above what Sir Wilfrid Greene's Committee found was the appropriate sum. I calculate that interest at the rate of 3 per cent. on the £66,000,000 for 3½ years would be just over £7,000,000, so that under the proposal in the Bill the royalty owners will be receiving between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 not contemplated by Sir Wilfrid Greene's Committee, and £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 out of public funds will go to the royalty owners rather than to the Commission when, in accordance with the normal practice, the royalty owners might expect to receive, and should receive, interest at the rate of 3 per cent. by an adaptation of the machinery which the Government themselves have set out in paragraph 19 of the Third Schedule.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 215.

Division No. 52.]
AYES.
[10.8 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Garro Jones, G. M.
McEntee, V. La T.


Adamson, W. M.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mander, G. le M.


Ammon, C. G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mathers, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Masser, F.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Milner, Major J.


Barnes, A. J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Montague, F.


Barr, J.
Groves, T. E.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Batey, J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Muff, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Bevan, A.
Hardie, Agnes
Naylor, T. E.


Broad, F. A.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Oliver, G. H.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Owen, Major G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Paling, W.


Burke, W. A.
Hicks, E. G.
Parker, J.


Cape, T.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Cassells, T.
Holdsworth, H.
Price, M. P.


Chater, D.
Hollins, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cluse, W. S.
Jagger, J.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ridley, G.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Riley, B.


Daggar, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ritson, J.


Dalton, H.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirby, B. V.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Day, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lathan, G.
Sexton, T. M.


Ede, J. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Shinwell, E.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leach, W.
Short, A.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Silkin, L.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Leonard, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Leslie, J. R.
Simpson, F. B.


Foot, D. M.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Frankel, D.
Lunn, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Gardner, B. W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, T. (Normanton)




Sorensen, R. W.
Watkins, F. C.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Watson, W. McL.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
White, H. Graham
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilkinson, Ellen



Tinker, J. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Walkden, A. G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Fildes, Sir H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Apsley, Lord
Fleming, E. L.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Asks, Sir R. W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Peake, O.


Assheton, R.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Peat, C. U.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Blaillie, Sir A. W. M.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Procter, Major H. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Radford, E. A.


Bernays, R. H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Boulton, W. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ramsbotham, H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Grimston, R. V.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bracken, B.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Brass, Sir W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hambro, A. V.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bull, B. B.
Hannah, I. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Burghley, Lord
Harbord, A.
Rowlands, G.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Butler, R. A.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cary, R. A.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Salt, E. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Holmes, J. S.
Savery, Sir Servington


Channon, H.
Hopkinson, A.
Scott, Lord William


Christie, J. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Selley, H. R.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hume, Sir G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hunter, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Spens, W. P.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Kimball, L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.


Crooke, J. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Tate, Mavis C.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lewis, O.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Liddall, W. S.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Cross, R. H.
Lipson, D. L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Crossley, A. C.
Little, Sir E. Graham.
Wakefield, W. W.


Culverwell, C. T.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Davidson, Viscountess
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dawson, Sir P.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Warrender, Sir V.


De la Bère, R.
McKie, J. H.
Wells, S. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Denville, Alfred
Magnay, T.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Maitland, A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Drewe, C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Markham, S. F.
Wise, A. R.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Duggan, H. J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wragg, H.


Dunglass, Lord
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.



Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr. Furness.


Emery, J. F.
Munro, P.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Lee: I beg to move, in page 6, line 30, at the end, to insert:
and the compensation payable in respect of all subsidiary coal hereditaments shall be on the basis of ten years' purchase of the ascertained annual value.
The arguments adduced by the last two speakers on the previous Amendment with regard to paragraph 19 of the Third Schedule were passed over very coolly, and perhaps at a later stage we may have a further explanation concerning them. This Amendment deals with subsidiary coal hereditaments. A global figure is mentioned as the maximum amount for the principal coal hereditaments. With regard to the subsidiary hereditaments, however, we have an estimate of £10,000,000 which is to cover not only those hereditaments but also the cost of registration and valuation as well as interest and other items. We have no idea of how the value of the subsidiary hereditaments is to be ascertained.
I suggest that as we have taken a basis of 15 years' purchase in the case of the principal hereditaments, we should take a basis of 10 years' purchase for the subsidiary hereditaments. I should like to know whether the Government have any basis upon which they are going to fix a figure for subsidiary hereditaments. Is the sum of £10,000,000 merely an estimate which may be increased later? If the £10,000,000 is to cover all the items mentioned, one can readily understand how it may rise to a much larger figure. I do not know whether the Government have formed any estimate as to the amount which have to be met in respect of subsidiary hereditaments. There is nothing in the Bill to guide us or to show how it is proposed to arrive at a figure, and, as I say, it may be that the sum of £10,000,000 will not cover it. We ought to know whether this is merely an estimate or the maximum sum which is to be spent upon these subsidiary hereditaments together with the registration and other costs mentioned.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I support this Amendment with a feeling of considerable confidence that the Government will be prepared to accept it. In the Debate on an earlier Amendment to-day we discussed the issue between 10 years' purchase or 15 years' purchase in the case of the principal hereditaments, and the Government

have used their majority to carry their proposition that 15 years' purchase is the appropriate figure. Coming to an inferior kind of coal, we shall be justified in suggesting that the period of purchase should be restricted to 10 years. The House ought clearly to know that the £10,000,000 figure which is mentioned in addition to the £66,000,000 is not any fixed amount. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading made the position very clear, and left it to the House to come to a determination as to whether 10 or 15 or any other period of years would be appropriate in the circumstances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, in response to a question:
Then the hon. Gentleman asked me a question about the extra £10,000,000. There is really no mystery about that. It is contained in the Bill. The £10,000,000 is not an agreed figure of any sort or kind. What has happened is that there are a number of figures which were not, in fact, included in the subject-matter of the award made by the Greene Tribunal. They were never intended to be so included. An important matter, for example, is compensation in respect of subsidiary coal hereditaments, such as iron, stone and so forth. It must go in many cases with the coal. It has got to be the subject of a proper determination."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1937; col. 1084, Vol. 329.]
So that the matter is quite specifically left open for the House. Now surely, if 15 years is being asked for clean, straight coal at the present moment, or for coal which is known to be available within a reasonable period, then for this subsidiary coal which is mixed with iron ore, or may be exclusively iron ore, or stone, or what in county Durham is known as clay or marl, surely a reasonable figure cannot be the same figure of 15 years' purchase. Then we were very carefully advised by the coalowners on the Second Reading. For instance, the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) said that coal-mining was not a lucrative business. That was his general statement, and he mentioned that in 1890 in his particular district a borehole was sunk at a cost of between £10,000 and £12,000. That money was lost, and nothing was returned from it, and he said he had paid two sets of death duties upon that property. If that be so, surely the Government are going to be put in an invidious position if we are to pay the whole figure that is suggested in the Bill, namely, 15 years' purchase.
Therefore, it is plain from the statement which has been made by the coalowners


themselves in this House, that in certain circumstances it is almost possible that much of this subsidiary coal will not be worked at all by the Government, and surely the Government ought to protect the industry itself by agreeing to a less figure and a less purchase price than that suggested at the moment in the Bill, namely, 15 years. It is for these reasons, which are business reasons and sound, equitable, and just, that the Government ought to accept the proposition suggested in this Amendment.

10.25 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I want to put before the Committee a slightly different aspect of this Amendment. The Committee will appreciate that, so far as the principal coal hereditaments are concerned, there is a limiting sum. It can be divided as the royalty owners like among themselves. It is no concern of the Commission or the Government how it is divided, because it cannot be more than £66,500,000. Then we come to the question of the subsidiary coal hereditaments, that is,
minerals or substances other than bituminous coal, cannel coal or anthracite, and property and rights annexed to any such minerals.
This can be assessed for compensation at any sum, without limit whatever. There is nothing in the Bill, in a case, for instance, where one of these minerals is in association with coal, to stop the royalty owner who thinks he has got a raw deal over his coal putting in as extravagant a claim as he likes. One has to consider next how that claim is to be decided between the Commission and the owner of the subsidiary coal hereditament. When one turns to the Third Schedule of the Bill, one finds that the valuation boards which are set up for the purpose of assessing the share of the sum paid by virtue of the compensation for the principal coal hereditaments are also to assess the value of the subsidiary coal hereditaments. These valuation boards have a curious constitution. They consist almost entirely of those who at the date are engaged in the management of the mineral assets in the regions. They are the very people who will be putting forward the claims. In other words, we are setting up a tribunal of the people who will be the claimants with an unlimited power to give them as much as they like. That, I think, is perhaps the

most extraordinary provision that has ever appeared in any Act of Parliament.
The appeal from them is to a referee who must also be a mineral agent, or in all probability will be a mineral agent He will not be a mineral agent concerned in the claim, but, on the well-known principle, "I will scratch your back if you scratch mine," these agents, hearing one another's claims, are not likely to be over parsimonious in the sums which they allow for the subsidiary coal hereditaments. I imagine that this method of assessing compensation for the subsidiary hereditaments is really an oversight. That is why we have introduced in the Amendment a suggestion that, if we are to have anything like this method of arriving at the compensation for subsidiary coal hereditaments, we must put in the Bill a maximum sum beyond which they cannot go in these arbitrations. Whether it is secured in that way or by introducing some different and fresh system of arbitration by impartial persons does not perhaps matter so much, but we are convinced that some method must be introduced by which the Commission and the public can be protected against extravagant claims being allowed by the valuation boards.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The intention, if not the direct effect, of this Amendment is to fix for the subsidiary coal hereditaments some kind of global sum in the same way as has been fixed for the principal coal hereditaments, and I confess that had it been practicable and possible to do so it would, I think, in principle, have been desirable. But hon. Members will, on reflection, realise that the differences between these two valuations are such that the method which we have adopted for one becomes quite impracticable for the other. In the first place, the whole method of the valuation of the principal coal hereditaments depended on being able to agree upon an annual sum which represented their value and would, when the number of years' purchase had been found, give the global sum. We had sufficient information to enable us to do that in the case of the principal coal hereditaments, but no such information is in existence with regard to the subsidiary hereditaments, and it would not be possible to arrive at any annual figure on which a number of years' purchase could be based.
The second thing to remember is that, whereas with the principal coal hereditaments we are taking over not only coal which is being worked, but all coal, even if unproved, in the case of the subsidiary hereditaments all that we are taking over is those which are actually now included in leases, and even those we can disclaim. Therefore, the question whether the particular asset is wasting and how much life remains to it becomes extremely important, much more important than when we were dealing with the principal hereditament, where we were taking over all the unproved coal, which makes almost a perpetuity of the asset.
I confess that there will probably be a number of instances where, to give to the associated minerals a price fixed upon 10 years' purchase, would provide a bargain much too favourable to the owners of those minerals. It might be that the lease in which they were comprised had only a year or two to run, it might be that the minerals were almost worked out, and yet we should be compelled to give a 10 years' purchase price. There is, I think, no satisfactory method, except that of the individual valuation of such subsidiary hereditaments as the Commission desire to take over, because we must remember that they have the power, even though these associated minerals may be comprised in a lease, to disclaim them if they think that it is no advantage to them to have them. Therefore, I think there is no possible method of arriving at proper compensation for these subsidiary hereditaments other than that of individual valuation of those which are to be taken over, and that is the method adopted by the Government. I cannot give any accurate forecast of the sum to which such compensation is likely to amount, but I can tell hon. Members that from what knowledge we have from the surveys which we have been able to make it would appear that the amount involved will be extremely small.
I come now to the very important point raised by the hon. and learned Gentle-

man the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). He referred to this matter on Second Reading, and I was struck at the time by the point that he made. I have looked into it since, and I agree that the method which we have adopted for the valuation of the principal coal hereditaments which really consists only of splitting up among people an amount which is already agreed, is a method which, although for that particular purpose the best and the quickest, is not so well adapted to deal with the valuation of individual properties, the global sum not having been agreed. Therefore, when we come to the Third Schedule, I shall be prepared to put down an Amendment which should safeguard the position of the Government and the Commission, will ensure that the valuation of such of these subsidiary hereditaments as they wish to be taken over will be on a proper basis, and will give no loophole for the admission of those inflated values to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I think that hon. Members will agree that the method of individual valuation is the best and that, with the safeguard which I will then propose, there will be no danger that they will be foisted upon the Commission at exorbitant prices.

10.36 p.m.

Sir. S. Cripps: In view of the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman has given that he will deal with this question of the value of these subsidiary hereditaments, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Lee: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes 226; Noes, 112.

Division No. 53.]
AYES.
[10.37 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brass, Sir W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Barrie, Sir C. C.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Asks, Sir R. W.
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Bull, B. B.


Assheton, R.
Boulton, W. W.
Burghley, Lord


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bracken, B.
Butler, R. A.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cartland, J. R. H.




Cary, R. A.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Channon, H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Christie, J. A.
Hambro, A. V.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Harbord, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Colman, N. C. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Holdsworth, H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Holmes, J. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rowlands, G.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Crooke, J. S.
Hunter, T.
Salmon, Sir I.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Salt, E. W.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Samuel, M. R. A


Cross, R. H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Savery, Sir Servington


Crossley, A. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Scott, Lord William


Culverwell, C. T.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Selley, H. R.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Dawson, Sir P.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


De la Bère, R.
Kimball, L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Denville, Alfred
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Drewe, C.
Liddall, W. S.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lipson, D. L.
Spens, W. P.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Duggan, H. J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duncan, J. A. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Dunglass, Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stuart, Hon. J, (Moray and Nairn)


Eastwood, J. F.
McKie, J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Ellis, Sir G.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Emery, J. F.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Magnay, T.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maitland, A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Errington, E.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mander, G. le M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Markham, S. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Fildes, Sir H.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wells, S. R.


Fleming, E. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
White, H. Graham


Foot, D. M.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Furness, S. N.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wise, A. R.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Munro, P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wragg, H.


Gower, Sir R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Palmer, G. E. H.



Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Peake, O.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Peat, C. U.
Captain Waterhouse and Major


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl sbro, W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Sir James Edmondson.


Grimston, R. V.
Peters, Dr. S. J.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Burke, W. A.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cape, T.
Ede, J. C.


Ammon, C. G.
Cassells, T.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Chater, D.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. G. R.
Cluse, W. S.
Frankel, D.


Banfield, J. W.
Cove, W. G.
Gardner, B. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Garro Jones, G. M.


Barr, J.
Daggar, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Batey, J.
Dalton, H.
Grenfell, D. R.


Bellenger, F. J.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Bevan, A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Broad, F. A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Groves, T. E.


Bromfield, W.
Day, H.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Dobbie, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)







Hardie, Agnes
MacNeill Weir, L.
Short, A.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Silkin, L.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Messer, F.
Silverman, S. S.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Milner, Major J.
Simpson, F. B.


Hicks, E. G.
Montague, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hollins, A.
Muff, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Jagger, J.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Sorensen, R. W.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Kelly, W. T.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Paling, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Kirby, B. V.
Parker, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Kirkwood, D.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Watkins, F. C.


Lathan, G.
Price, M. P.
Watson, W. McL.


Lawson, J. J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Leach, W.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Lee, F.
Ridley, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Leonard, W.
Riley, B.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Leslie, J. R.
Ritson, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Logan, D. G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Lunn, W.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sexton, T. M.



McEntee, V. La T.
Shinwell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE (SHEERNESS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Captain Margesson.]

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Maitland: I wish to raise a question with regard to the administration of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Unlike most matters which come up on the Motion for the Adjournment, this is not a criticism against a Department to which I address myself, but rather my desire is to ask for the help of that Department. Summonses have been issued against the Sheerness Urban District Council, one of the local authorities which I have the honour to represent. These summonses are for non-payment of the current year's Drainage Rate. This is a case in which quite law-abiding citizens have felt it their duty to protest against the payment of rates. It is a case of the council themselves, a rating authority, and I think the House will agree that it can only be on grounds which they felt to be well-founded when a rating authority would itself go to the length of being summoned for non-payment of rates. The case is not without difficulty, and, as I said, I do not propose to criticise the Department concerned, the Ministry of Agriculture. On the contrary, the council have received, as far as has been

possible, the greatest courtesy from the present Minister of Agriculture and his staff, and from his predecessor in office. It has been my duty to represent to the Ministry the case of my constituents, and the Ministry has done as much as it possibly could to help me. But the fact is that to-day there is still a great feeling of dissatisfaction and discontent and a feeling that an injustice has been done, in particular to the District of Sheerness with regard to the incidence of this particular rate.
This area is very small and the majority of the people from a material point of view are poor. I desire to emphasise that the members of the local council—and I know personally every member—have been actuated by a sense of duty to their constituents in carrying the case to the length of being summoned. The position is that this authority has itself made, in years gone by, what it regards as adequate provision, and is already paying, and is due to pay, very large sums each year, amounting to many thousands of pounds, and that is at the present time charged upon the rates. Their case to me is that, although they represent only about one-fortieth of the area covered by this drainage board, they are called upon to pay one-third of the amount of the rates collected. They had an opportunity, when a public inquiry was held in 1933, of putting the case as it affected that particular district. But certain arrangements were made during that inquiry which were not contemplated by this particular authority. The result was that something like £150,000 rateable value was lifted out of the scheme


by a reduction from 8 feet to 5 feet above sea level being accepted as the basis of inclusion. This small district of less than 500 acres could not see, and I think, perhaps, could be excused in not having seen, the possible effect which this elimination of £150,000 would have upon them. Since that time the local authorities themselves have made representations to the catchment board and the drainage board, and by deputation to the Minister. It is true that the Minister said, in answer to a question which I addressed to him the other day, that differential rating orders to the extent of twenty-five thirty-sixths of the rate levied by the internal drainage board had been made, but in spite of that the position still remains that the town is called upon to pay some 30 per cent., or nearly one-third to the internal drainage board over an area of some 35,000 acres, and they are really only concerned with one small portion of that area.
It is always difficult, in a matter of this kind, to decide what course a Member ought to take in bringing it before the House. One realises that it is purely a local matter and that it rather trespasses upon the time and patience of other hon. Members to labour the point on something which concerns his own Division. This has rather a wider aspect. We in this House are very dependent upon the close and cordial co-operation of local authorities in many Acts which we pass here. It is the local authorities who can make some bad Acts very good administratively, and I agree that they can make some good Acts bad by administrative action. But if a local authority feels bound by conviction to carry its protest against the administrative effect of a particular Act passed by this House, at any rate, it is evidence of their sincerity and belief in the fact that they are suffering from some injustice.
I have been very appreciative of the assistance rendered by the Minister, and I appreciate his difficulties. It is difficult under the Act to give much assistance in this particular matter, but I would like to make two suggestions. I am not sure whether, under the Act, it is possible to do this, but at any rate I trust he will consider the holding of an inquiry, so that the facts which I have put before the House can either be established or disproved, in order that the public of Sheerness

may know once and for all whether there is any foundation for the feeling that they are suffering from any injustice. If that is proved to be the case, I am quite sure that the Minister of Agriculture, if he is satisfied that an injustice is being done, can be trusted to find ways and means of alleviating the distress. If that is not possible under the operations of the Act, will he consider some operation by which the local authority may compound the rate? If people have a belief that a certain rate is wrong it is an added sense if irritation to have every half year or year an additional demand note. Will he consider the possibility of some compounding of this rate by which the local authority may pay an agreed sum to the internal drainage board, and then this House can be relieved of any trouble with regard to the details?
If such a suggestion can be accepted, the local authority can be left to make their own case to the internal drainage board in such a way that they should pay an amount which is right and proper. They do not desire to do anything that is not right or proper. If a suggestion of the kind that I have made can be accepted, either the holding of an inquiry or an arrangement whereby the amount can be compounded on such a basis that it will be satisfactory to the internal drainage board and the local council, the solution will be very acceptable.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — QUAIL PROTECTION BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — POOR LAW (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.

Order [8th December], that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee read, and discharged.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Wednesday.—[Miss Ward.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE (SHEERNESS).

Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Maitland: I have finished my observations. I am afraid that I have made myself somewhat of a nuisance to the Ministry of Agriculture by the many calls that I have made upon their time and patience, and I hope they will forgive me for this further intrusion. With their assistance, I hope that we shall be able to reach a satisfactory solution of a matter which is causing great concern to a large body of my constituents.

11.4 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): The House will agree that my hon. Friend has put the case for his constituents with very great moderation and great clarity. As he has indicated, it is not the first time that he has been in touch with the Ministry of Agriculture on this rather difficult subject. His intervention has always been very friendly, taking the form of letters, interviews and conferences, culminating in tonight's statement on the Motion for the Adjournment. The problem arises under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, in respect of the town of Sheerness, owing to its geographical position, as far as drainage is concerned. As a result of that position it is clear that the Isle of Sheppey and consequently the town of Sheerness came within the catchment area, and the defences of Sheerness, in so far as they can be regarded as land drainage works, became the responsibility of the catchment board. One of the first duties which the catchment board carried out was to set up two internal drainage boards, one for the Upper Medway and one for the Lower Medway, the latter including the town of Sheerness. This proposal to set up a board for the Upper and Lower Medway evoked a certain amount of opposition, and in 1933 the Minister directed a public inquiry to be held. This took place, and as a result the area within the Lower Medway district was considerably reduced. The reduction did not affect the Isle of Sheppey. In due course the Order became effective.

Mr. Maitland: Indirectly the Isle of Sheppey was affected because it took out of the area a large proportion of rateable value which up to that moment had been included.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Yes. When the drainage board was first constituted a number of ratepayers were disturbed because their area was called upon to pay a drainage rate based on Schedule A annual value, with which they were not familiar, and which they had not been called upon to pay before. Then the hon. Member quite rightly came into the picture on behalf of his constituents, and if I am correctly representing the numerous conversations and letters which have passed between him and the Minister of Agriculture he wanted either to remove Sheerness entirely from the catchment area, to put it outside the scope of the Land Drainage Act, or remove it from the internal drainage district, and at least two deputations led by the hon. Member made representations to that effect. As regards the first proposal, the exclusion of the area from the catchment area, I think it was pointed out that this really was impossible because the catchment area is a geographical area bounded by the watershed, and it was impossible to defend the exclusion of Sheerness and the Isle of Sheppey from that area.
As regards the proposal for removing Sheerness and the Isle of Sheppey from the internal drainage district, this can only be done if the catchment board submitted another scheme for altering the boundaries of the district. I understand that the catchment board are not prepared to do that, and under the Act there is no method by which they can be made to do it if they do not desire. That was pointed out at the public inquiry. Therefore, the only remaining possibilities are for the internal drainage board to exercise such powers as they possess under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and I can assure the hon. Member that the Ministry has done its utmost with its powers to alleviate the position. In fact, the Internal Drainage Board has availed itself of certain provisions in the Land Drainage Act and has made a differential rating order to which the hon. Member has referred, with the result that the town of Sheerness pays only 11–36ths of the full rate payable by the highest-rated part of the drainage district. I know the hon. Member's point is that even so the figures show what a large contribution they make to the rates of the district. At the same time, there is no other action the Ministry can take, nor,


indeed, the drainage board can take, short of making an order decreasing still further the fraction of the full rate levied in Sheerness or an order exempting Sheerness from the payment of rates altogether. Short of that I do not know that there is anything more that the Ministry can do.

Mr. Quibell: Could not the Ministry get over the difficulty by asking the Internal Drainage Board to make a precept on the local authority of Sheerness itself, and incorporate the rate in the general rate, specifying that it is for drainage purposes.

Mr. Ramsbotham: If I understand my hon. Friend rightly, that is the suggestion he puts. The real trouble is that this is the payment of a new rate by a body of persons who have never paid such a rate before; and the rate being on an annual value basis and first imposed without any differential rating orders having been made, it means a considerable burden on a smaller class of householder. I can understand the position not only of the hon. Member but of his constituents. The first suggestion he has made, I understand, is that the inquiry should be held. In regard to that, first of all, I am not sure that it can be, but even if it is, it must be borne in mind that the matter was very fully thrashed out some years ago. His second suggestion appeals to me with considerably more force. I think my right hon. Friend in a letter to my hon. Friend touched upon that suggestion some time in March last. It is that the Sheerness local authority should pay the Lower Medway Drainage Board a certain sum in lieu of drainage rates and in return the drainage board should make an order exempting them from the

rates. It has been done in other cases and I believe the arrangement has worked well. My right hon. Friend will be responsible for confirming the order, but he cannot initiate it. It must be put forward by the internal drainage board. At any rate what we are saying to-night will indicate that the method has worked elsewhere, and it does get over the difficulty of a rate-payer in a certain area receiving demand notes, not only from the local authority but also from the drainage board. We know by experience that leads to a number of complaints. But my hon. Friend must understand we cannot initiate that procedure although our duty will be to confirm such an order or otherwise. I am sure this discussion tonight has been profitable to that extent, and my right hon. Friend will have indicated to my hon. Friend some time ago that this method of procedure has worked to satisfaction, and might work to equal satisfaction if repeated in this case. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied to leave the matter as it stands at the present.

Mr. Maitland: May I be permitted to say that the Minister of Agriculture not having been able to be here to-night, I appreciate the reason for his absence, and I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions for his statement. Perhaps they can in some other way help me in this rather difficult matter.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.